Remove an ignore rule so its fingerprint counts toward burn-rate alerts again. WRITE: requires the ADMIN role.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The ignore rule id (UUID), from create_ignore_rule or list_ignore_rules |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses the operation type ('WRITE') and required permission ('requires the ADMIN role'), and explains the consequence on burn-rate alerts. This goes beyond a bare 'delete' statement, though it stops short of mentioning irreversibility or error handling.
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?
The description is two sentences, with the core action and effect front-loaded and the auth requirement neatly appended. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or 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?
For a simple single-parameter delete tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, effect, and authorization. It does not detail irreversibility or error behavior, but these are largely inferable from the name and schema, making the description sufficiently complete.
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 the single 'id' parameter is well-described in the schema (UUID, source). The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning, so baseline 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?
The description clearly states the action 'Remove an ignore rule' and explains the functional outcome ('its fingerprint counts toward burn-rate alerts again'). This is specific to the resource and distinguishes it from siblings like create_ignore_rule and delete_alert_rule.
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?
Usage context is implied (reversing a prior ignore to re-enable alerts) but not explicitly stated as 'use this when...' Nor does it mention alternatives or exclusions. The 'again' hints at the reversal, but no direct guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tool pairs are near-duplicates, including three deprecated aliases (add_investigation_alert_channel vs add_alert_channel, list_investigation_alert_channels vs list_alert_channels, remove_investigation_alert_channel vs remove_alert_channel) that muddy the surface. Additionally, suppress_signal and create_ignore_rule both suppress alerting via different mechanisms, which could cause misselection despite detailed descriptions.
The vast majority of tools follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern (create_api_test, list_issues, set_alert_rule_status). A few bare-noun tools (logs, spans, metrics) and the standalone verb correlate break the pattern slightly, but overall the naming is highly consistent and predictable.
With 52 tools, this is on the extreme end of the calibration scale. Even accounting for the broad scope of an observability platform, the count is excessive and includes several deprecated redundancies that inflate it further.
The toolset provides comprehensive CRUD/lifecycle coverage across all major domains: alert rules (create, read, update, delete, status, delivery, preview), API tests (create, read, update, delete, run history, credentials), ignore rules and suppressions, issues with digest config, investigations with claim/read, channels, credentials, and rich query tools (logs, spans, metrics, SQL, traces, correlation). No obvious dead ends or missing core operations.