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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds only the eligibility constraint ('canResolve in the alert list'); it says nothing about whether resolution notifies channels, whether it is reversible, or what happens to the note. Under annotation coverage the bar is lower, so a 3 fits.

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?

A single sentence with the action front-loaded and no wasted wording. The nested parenthetical is slightly clunky but carries real qualification information.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the essentials are present. The gaps are the relationship to vs_alerts_acknowledge and any post-resolution effects, which an agent would need to choose and predict the outcome of the call.

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 parameters (id, note with the 500-character limit) are fully documented in the schema. The description merely restates that the note is optional, adding no new meaning; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Mark an alert as resolved') and clarifies the target is an alert-rule alert rather than some other alert type. It does not, however, distinguish this from the sibling vs_alerts_acknowledge, which is the most likely point of confusion for an agent.

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 parenthetical 'canResolve in the alert list' implies a precondition that the agent must check before calling, which is useful. But there is no explicit statement of when to resolve rather than acknowledge (vs_alerts_acknowledge), nor any exclusion guidance.

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