vsz_clear_alarm

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full disclosure burden. It only says 'clear (dismiss)' without explaining what happens to the alarm (e.g., irreversible, requires specific permissions, or changes alarm state). This is minimal and does not clarify side effects or return behavior.

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?

The description is a single sentence plus an Args block, with no fluff or repetition. It is front-loaded and efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification. It earns a 4 because every part is purposeful.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the description is incomplete. It does not mention what the tool returns (despite an output schema existing), any side effects on the alarm, or how it differs from the similar vsz_acknowledge_alarm. Given the lack of annotations, this is a clear gap.

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?

The schema provides no descriptions for host or alarm_id (0% coverage). The description partially compensates by explaining host as 'vSZ controller IP or hostname' and alarm_id as 'Alarm UUID' with an example. This adds meaning beyond the schema but is still sparse and lacks format constraints or additional context.

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 clearly states the action: 'Clear (dismiss) an alarm.' The verb 'clear' and resource 'alarm' are specific. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool vsz_acknowledge_alarm, which likely performs a similar action, so it loses a point for missing sibling distinction.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as vsz_acknowledge_alarm or vsz_get_alarm. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it.

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