create_status_page_incident

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the creation action and lists fields, but it does not explain consequences such as subscriber notifications, default notifySubscribers behavior, publishing side effects, or reversibility. The schema mentions defaults, but the description itself adds little behavioral context beyond 'creates an incident.'

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 compact, front-loaded with the core action, and organized into clear sections for required fields, optional fields, and alternatives. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description gives enough to understand the core request and avoids the maintenance-tool confusion, and the output schema covers return values. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations, it should also clarify side effects and account for the omitted optional field, leaving notable gaps.

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?

The description compensates for low top-level schema coverage by enumerating required and optional nested fields and their enum values. However, it omits the optional monitoringIncidentId field and does not mention the required top-level page_id, so the parameter guidance is helpful but incomplete.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create an incident on a status page.' It also distinguishes itself from the maintenance sibling by saying 'To schedule a maintenance window, use create_status_page_maintenance.' This is unambiguous and selection-relevant.

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 provides a clear alternative for maintenance windows, which is the most likely source of confusion. It does not, however, explicitly contrast with the generic create_incident sibling, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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