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

Annotations declare idempotentHint true and readOnlyHint false; the description reinforces this by explaining the no-op behavior and explicitly requiring write/full API key access. It also explains the reopen functionality via resolved=false, which is not apparent from annotations alone.

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 three short sentences, each carrying distinct value: action, auth requirement, and idempotency. No filler or redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description covers purpose, auth, idempotency, and parameter behavior fully. The schema completes the remaining details.

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 description coverage is 100%: alertId references list_alerts or get_domain as the source, and resolved explains its default and meaning. The tool description repeats the resolved=false behavior but adds no significant additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('Mark') and identifies the exact resource ('an alert'), also distinguishing the dual action of resolving or reopening. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like list_alerts, which only lists alerts without modifying them.

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 states the prerequisite of write/full API key scope and the idempotent behavior (resolving an already-resolved alert is a no-op). While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for when not to use it, the clear purpose and lack of overlapping siblings make the usage context unambiguous.

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