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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false; the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the three side effects a call triggers (closing incidents, flipping agent status to 'up', clearing threshold alarms). This is exactly the kind of consequence disclosure a mutation tool needs. It does not say whether the change is reversible or what happens if no active warning exists.

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 short sentences ordered purpose → effects → when-to-use, with no filler. Slight redundancy between 'resolved the underlying server load' and the opening resolution statement, but nothing distracting.

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 behavioral picture is good for a state-changing tool with no output schema, but the schema marks zero required parameters while offering three interchangeable identifiers. The description never says an identifier is required or how conflicts between aliases are handled, which leaves a real calling ambiguity unresolved.

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 all three parameters are already documented as id/agent_id/server_id aliases, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no meaning about which alias to prefer when several could be passed. Baseline 3 applies when the schema is fully described.

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 ('resolves') and resource ('an active warning sign on a monitored server agent') and enumerates the concrete effects: closing warning incidents, restoring agent status to 'up', and clearing firing threshold alarms. It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling resolve_incident, which an agent could easily confuse with this one.

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 gives an explicit precondition: use it 'when you have diagnosed high CPU, RAM, or disk warnings and resolved the underlying server load.' That is a clear when-to-use signal tied to a diagnostic outcome. It stops short of stating when-not to use it or naming resolve_incident/acknowledge_incident as alternatives.

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