unmute_alerts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds a '[WRITE][risk=medium]' tag and the 'lift suppression' semantics, but says nothing about what state changes on resume, whether alert flooding can result, or any permission requirements.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one bracketed sentence, followed by a compact Args block with exactly two entries. Nothing is padded, though the [WRITE] tag partially duplicates readOnlyHint=false.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, both parameters, value provenance, and defaulting. Annotations carry the safety profile, so remaining gaps (post-resume effects, permissions) are minor.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: both parameters are documented, entity_uri as a 'SWIS entity URI to resume (from list_muted)' and target as a 'SolarWinds target name from config; omit for the default'. Provenance and default behavior are both given, though no URI format example is provided.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Resume alerts for an entity (lift suppression)' names the action and its effect clearly, and the [WRITE][risk=medium] tag signals the mutation class. It does not explicitly name the inverse sibling mute_alerts, but the behavior is unambiguous enough to distinguish it from list_muted or active_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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: entity_uri is annotated '(from list_muted)', which tells the agent where to source the value, and target notes 'omit for the default'. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative tool is named.

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