change_incident_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions allowed status values but does not disclose behavioral traits such as validation rules, authorization requirements, idempotency, or effects on related objects. For a mutation tool, more transparency is needed.

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 concise with two short sentences, covering the core action and key parameter details. There is no unnecessary verbosity.

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 low complexity (3 parameters, one optional), the description is somewhat complete. However, it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral context. An output schema exists but is not shown, so return value information is absent. While adequate for simple use, it could be more informative.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the status parameter values and the server parameter's purpose, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not describe the incident_id parameter (though its purpose is clear from the name). Overall, it adds some value but could be more explicit.

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 'Change an incident's status', specifying the verb and resource. It also lists acceptable status values, providing additional clarity. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, the purpose is distinct enough given the context of incident management.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or side effects. The description only states what the tool does without providing usage context.

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