create_silence

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 write/safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that silences are time-boxed, that minutes must be > 0, and that matchers select which alerts get muted — but it never explains the actual consequence of 'destructive' here (that matching alerts stop notifying).

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?

One front-loaded sentence carries the operation and its inverse, followed by a compact Args list where each line maps to a parameter with no filler. The [WRITE][risk=medium] tag is dense signal rather than noise.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, all parameters and the inverse action. What's missing is the operational context an agent would want: what happens to already-firing alerts, whether re-creation is possible, and any auth requirements.

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 burden, and it does document all five parameters: matcher object shape {name, value, isRegex?}, the minutes > 0 constraint, the meaning of comment, dry_run's preview semantics, and target's default behavior. This is a solid compensation, though matcher value semantics (exact vs. regex matching) stay thin.

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 and resource ('Create a time-boxed Alertmanager silence') and flags the write risk level. It explicitly names its inverse sibling, expire_silence, so an agent can distinguish the create/expire pair without inspecting either schema.

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 identifies the inverse tool (expire_silence) and notes dry_run previews a change without creating it, which gives some routing signal. However, it never states when silencing is the right action versus alternatives (e.g., fixing the underlying alert), nor any prerequisites such as required permissions.

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