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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description has a lower bar. It still adds real value by explaining the effect (alert suppression on new occurrences) and the response ('Returns a confirmation'), though it omits reversibility/permission context.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the core effect (stop alerting) is front-loaded immediately after the action. Nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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 2-parameter mutation with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers action, purpose, effect, and response shape. A brief note on reversibility or required permissions would close the remaining gap.

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%, so both errorId and reason are already documented in the schema. The description adds no field-level guidance such as when a reason is expected or what format an error ID takes, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Marks an error group ignored') and the resulting behavior ('new occurrences stop alerting'). It is clearly distinct from runheed_resolve_error and runheed_unignore_error by name semantics, but does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings.

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?

'for known or expected errors' gives a clear condition that selects this tool over triaging or resolving. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., use runheed_resolve_error when the error is fixed, runheed_unignore_error to reverse), so no explicit exclusions are given.

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