update-status-page-degradation

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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint: false). The description confirms this by stating 'Update'. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as side effects, required permissions, or rate limits. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description adds no extra context beyond the schema fields.

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, front-loaded sentence of 10 words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose with no redundant or filler content, earning top marks for conciseness.

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 covers the key action (updating fields) but does not explain the effect of notifySubscribers or the overall result of the update. It is adequate but lacks details on return values or side effects.

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 coverage is 100% with all parameters described. The description merely lists the updatable fields without adding deeper meaning or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents parameter semantics adequately.

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' and the resource 'a degradation incident', listing the updatable fields (status, title, affected components). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create and delete by focusing on modification.

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 implicitly conveys that this tool is for updating an existing degradation, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., when to use create or delete). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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