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

Far exceeds the annotations: it discloses that disabling is a reversible mute, preserves firing history, keeps the alert visible as disabled, settles open incidents, stops new incidents for 'external' sources, leaves the upstream Prometheus rule firing, and that re-enabling resumes ingest. This is exactly the kind of consequence detail a mutation tool needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence carries information. Some sentences run long and the external-source caveat is dense, but nothing is filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so a brief note on what the call returns would fully close the loop; otherwise the description covers safety, side effects, and counterpart tools completely for a two-parameter setter.

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% and both params are self-explanatory, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real value by pointing to list_alerts as the source of the alert_id UUID, bridging the parameter to its lookup tool.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb pair and resource ('Enable or disable one alert'), and the rest distinguishes it from siblings delete_alert and list_alerts. An agent can tell exactly what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit routing: 'Find the alert id with list_alerts' and 'Prefer this over deleting an alert: deletion also removes the firing history and cannot be undone from the portal.' Both the prerequisite and the when-not-to-use alternative are named.

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