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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It openly explains that resolution is temporary, that notifications are silenced until recurrence, and that the next occurrence will re-notify. This is meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond a simple action statement.

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, focused sentences with no filler. The action and effect are front-loaded, followed by the prerequisite and the critical 'does not permanently mute' caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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 mutation tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the required input source, and the nuanced re-notification behavior. It could mention error behavior for invalid fingerprints, but nothing essential for calling the tool correctly is missing.

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 the baseline of 3 applies. The description repeats the fingerprint parameter's source (list_alerts) but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, and it does not elaborate on the environment parameter beyond what the schema already states.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Mark an alert as resolved') and immediately states the observable effect: notifications are silenced until the error recurs. This clearly differentiates it from read-only sibling tools like list_alerts and get_recent_errors.

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 description gives clear context for when to use the tool and explicitly instructs the agent to pass a fingerprint from list_alerts. It doesn't enumerate alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is unambiguous and the prerequisite is stated.

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