resolve_incident

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

The description discloses the main behavioral effect (marks as resolved, stops escalations). However, with no annotations, it could mention required permissions, reversibility, or side effects. It is adequate but minimal.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the purpose. Every word adds value. No extraneous information.

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?

For a simple resolve action with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers purpose and key behavioral effect. It is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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 descriptions for both parameters. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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 explicitly states the verb 'resolve' and the resource 'incident', clearly differentiating it from siblings like 'acknowledge_incident'. It mentions the effect of stopping escalations, adding extra clarity.

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 when to use the tool (to resolve incidents) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. No guidance on prerequisites or context.

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