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

Annotations carry only destructiveHint=true, so the description adds the genuinely useful behavioral trait that the resolution is not permanent: if the condition persists the alert resurfaces on the next check. That is non-obvious, effect-level context an agent cannot get from the annotations. It does not explain why the operation is flagged destructive or whether the mark is reversible.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by the key behavioral caveat. The trailing 'Atera: PUT /api/v3/alerts/{alertId}' restates what the name and required integer id already convey, which is mild redundancy rather than a real defect.

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?

A single-parameter tool with no output schema and minimal annotations; the description covers the action, scope, and the important re-raise behavior, which is what an agent needs before invoking it. Only the destructive-flag rationale and any permission requirements are left unstated.

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?

One parameter at 100% schema description coverage ('The alert's AlertID.'), so the schema already carries the full parameter meaning. The description confirms the target is a single alert but adds no format or source detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Mark one monitoring alert as resolved') with a clear scope of exactly one alert, which separates it from the read-only atera_list_alerts. It does not name a sibling for contrast, but no sibling overlaps this operation, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement or named alternative, but there are no competing sibling tools for resolving an alert. The note that Atera re-raises the alert on the next check implies the semantics of resolving (suppression until re-detection), which is implied usage guidance rather than stated guidance.

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