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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: resolving does not suppress the alert permanently — if the underlying condition persists, Atera re-raises it on the next check. It also discloses the backing endpoint. It stops short of stating auth requirements or whether the resolve is idempotent/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 that are front-loaded with the core action, followed by the key behavioral caveat. No padding; every clause 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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and annotations covering the destructive flag, the description supplies the essential effect and the re-raise caveat. It omits how to find an alert ID and permission requirements, but nothing critical to correct invocation 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?

Single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already defines alert_id (AlertID, positive integer). The description adds no format, sourcing, or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when structured data carries the parameter definition.

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 + resource ("Mark one monitoring alert as resolved") and the effect is unambiguous. An agent can immediately distinguish this mutating tool from the read-oriented sibling atera_list_alerts. No tautology or ambiguity.

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 implies usage (resolve an alert you no longer want active) and explains the consequence of resolving, but gives no explicit when-to-use routing, no mention of how to obtain an alert_id (e.g., via atera_list_alerts), and no prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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