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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The 'WRITE:' prefix and 'safe on a snitch that is not paused' clause are consistent with those hints and reinforce idempotency in plain language, but add little beyond what the annotations already convey.

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?

A single compact line with the WRITE nature and safety note front-loaded, followed by the endpoint. No filler sentences.

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 single-parameter mutation tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the action, the safety characteristic, and the underlying endpoint. Nothing essential is missing, though the effect on the snitch's alerting state could be spelled out slightly more.

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% for the single 'snitch' parameter, and the schema already explains it accepts a token, masked token, or exact name. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'resume alerting for a paused snitch', which clearly contrasts with the sibling deadmanssnitch_pause_snitch. It does not explicitly name the sibling, so it falls just short of the top mark, but the operation 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?

It notes the operation is 'safe on a snitch that is not paused', which implies you need not check state first, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. auth scope), and no routing to alternatives such as pause_snitch or create_snitch.

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