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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and the write/read profile, so the safety bar is low. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the alert is removed from the open list and notifications cease, which is the effect an agent needs to reason about. It stops short of covering auth requirements or whether closure 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?

A single front-loaded sentence led by 'WRITE:' plus the endpoint path; every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and full schema descriptions, the definition covers purpose, effect and endpoint. Missing only edge details such as failure modes or permission requirements, which is a minor gap given annotation coverage.

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% and each parameter already documents itself, including cross-references to signl4_list_users and signl4_list_alerts. The description adds nothing beyond the schema for alert_id, user_id or comment, so the baseline 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 (close/resolve) and resource (alert), plus the concrete effect on the alert's lifecycle: it leaves the open list. This distinguishes it from signl4_acknowledge_alert, which implies suppression without removal, so an agent can route between the two.

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 effect ('stops all further notifications', 'leaves the open list') implies when closure is appropriate, but the description never explicitly contrasts it with signl4_acknowledge_alert or the other alert-mutating siblings, nor states prerequisites. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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