alert_resolve

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: it flags [WRITE][risk=medium], notes that ETag handling is automatic, and states that prior state is captured. The 'captures prior state' note is valuable since undo_list/undo_apply exist as siblings. It does not contradict the destructiveHint=true annotation, though 'risk=medium' somewhat underplays destructiveness.

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?

Front-loaded with the [WRITE][risk=medium] tag, then a tight one-line summary, then a compact Args block. Every line carries information, though the Args block partially restates the schema.

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?

With no output schema and only two parameters, the description covers inputs, side effects (ETag, prior-state capture), and the write/risk profile. It stops short of describing the resulting alert state transition or how the captured prior state can be undone.

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 carries the full burden, and it delivers: alert_ext_id is tied to alert_list output, and target is explained as a Prism Central config name that may be omitted for the default. Both parameters are semantically covered.

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 ('Resolve an alert'), which is clearly distinct from siblings like alert_acknowledge, alert_list, and analyze_alert. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, but the action itself 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?

Provides a useful workflow pointer by stating alert_ext_id comes 'as returned by alert_list' and explains the optional target's default behavior. However, it never says when to resolve vs. acknowledge or triage an alert, which is the key routing decision among its alert siblings.

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