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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds real value by explaining what each state does to visibility ('hides them from the open view') and by disclosing the return value ('Returns how many changed'). The final sentence restates idempotency already covered by idempotentHint, and it does not mention the 100-ID batch cap, but the destructive effect is contextualized well.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and identifier source, then state semantics, then return value and idempotency. No filler or redundant framing.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return value, and it covers mutation semantics and recoverability for a nested-body tool. The main omission is batch guidance around event_ids, which is visible in the schema but not reinforced in prose.

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 0%, so the description must carry meaning, and it does for the crucial 'state' field by defining reviewed/dismissed/new in behavioral terms the enum values alone do not convey. The 'event_ids' parameter is only covered indirectly ('by ID from listSignals'), leaving its array and max-100 nature to the schema.

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 names a specific verb (sets state), the resource (Signals alerts), and the identifier source ('by ID from listSignals'), which ties it directly to a sibling tool. An agent can distinguish this mutation from listSignals and other alert-adjacent tools without inspecting 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?

It clearly implies the workflow: obtain IDs via listSignals, then set one of three states, with each state's consequence spelled out ('dismissed... hides them from the open view'). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative for un-dismissing beyond the 'new' state, so there is a small gap.

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