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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description reinforces the write nature with a 'WRITE:' prefix. It adds genuinely non-annotated behavior: the change propagates to the alert's whole stack, and the underlying PATCH endpoint. It does not cover auth/permission needs or what happens to an existing ticket link on restore.

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 tight sentences: the leading 'WRITE:' flag and the enumerated actions are front-loaded, followed by the stack-scope caveat and endpoint. No filler.

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 3-parameter mutation with no output schema, it covers the state model, the conditional parameter, and blast radius. A minor gap remains around what occurs to an existing ticket association when restoring an alert to New, and whether the response confirms the new state.

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 67% with alert_id and ticket_id documented there, but the description adds real meaning for the status value — mapping 'dismissed' to dismiss, 'new' to restore, and 'ticketed' to linking a ticket, plus the conditional requirement for ticket_id. That exceeds the bare enum in 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 names a specific verb set and resource — dismiss/restore/link an alert — and enumerates the three allowed state transitions that match the status enum. An agent can immediately distinguish this from read siblings like gorelo_get_alert and gorelo_list_alerts.

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 gives a concrete conditional rule ('status ticketed needs ticket_id') and scope guidance ('applies to the alert's whole stack, as in the app'), which is clear usage context. It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not-to-use cases (e.g., read the alert first with gorelo_get_alert).

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