update-status-page-degradation

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'Update' and lists updatable fields, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., notifications, idempotency, auth requirements). The minimal description fails to provide adequate behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence of 12 words, which is efficient. However, it could be more informative by listing all relevant parameters or adding context without sacrificing conciseness. Overall, it is well-structured and front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain prerequisites (e.g., how to obtain degradationId), return values, or error scenarios. The tool is moderately complex, and the description leaves significant gaps for an agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description summarizes three parameters (status, title, affected components) but does not add meaning beyond the schema; it omits other parameters like description and notifySubscribers. No additional value is provided.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb (update), the resource (degradation incident), and the aspects that can be updated (status, title, affected components). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like update-status-page or create-status-page-degradation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for updating an existing degradation incident, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Alternatives are not mentioned, though the sibling list includes create and delete variants. Some implicit context from the name helps.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.