update-status-page-degradation

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

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It indicates an update operation but does not clarify whether it performs a partial merge or full replacement. No side effects (e.g., subscriber notifications) or idempotency are mentioned. The scope of update is unclear for fields like componentsAffected.

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 9 words, highly efficient. It front-loads the core purpose (update a degradation incident) and specifies the fields involved. No redundant information is present.

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 the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It fails to explain return values, prerequisites (e.g., degradation must exist), or the behavior of updating different field combinations. For a moderately complex mutation tool, more context is needed.

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 baseline is 3. The description highlights three parameters (status, title, affected components) but adds no semantic value beyond the schema. It does not explain constraints, formats, or relationships, so it merely reinforces the schema without adding new meaning.

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 action 'Update' and the resource 'degradation incident', and mentions specific fields (status, title, affected components). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create-status-page-degradation' and 'delete-status-page-degradation'. However, it does not list all updatable fields (e.g., description, notifySubscribers), slightly reducing completeness.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to create a new degradation or delete one. There are no prerequisites, examples, or exclusions mentioned. The description simply states what the tool does without contextual usage advice.

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