alert_resolve

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

The description discloses several behavioral traits: it is a write operation (WRITE), medium risk, auto-handles ETag (concurrency), and captures prior state (potential undo). However, it does not detail what 'resolve' actually changes in the system or any prerequisites/permissions required.

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 concise with a clear header indicating operation type and risk, a one-sentence purpose, and a bulleted argument list. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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?

The description covers purpose, parameters, and key behavioral traits (ETag, prior state). Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), it is nearly complete. A slight improvement would be mentioning the return value or any side effects.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the 'Args' section explicitly explains both parameters: alert_ext_id (source and format) and target (default behavior). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 'Resolve an alert' with a specific verb and resource. The '[WRITE][risk=medium]' prefix further clarifies the operation type and risk level, distinguishing it from sibling tools like alert_acknowledge.

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 description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., alert_acknowledge). It lacks explicit context about typical workflows or conditions that warrant resolution.

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