create_silence

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It includes [WRITE][risk=medium] for safety, notes that silences are time-boxed, requires minutes > 0, and explains dry_run behavior. It does not detail return values, idempotency, or permissions, but the added behavioral context is substantial.

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 front-loaded with a concise summary and safety tag, then provides a compact argument list. Every sentence serves a purpose with no filler, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains all parameters, the time-boxed nature, the inverse relationship, and dry_run behavior. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit return-value information, but this does not hinder the agent from invoking the tool correctly.

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 fully. It does: matchers are explained with the {name, value, isRegex?} format, minutes is constrained (>0), comment is defined as the reason, dry_run is described as a preview, and target is explained with a default. This provides complete semantic meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a time-boxed Alertmanager silence.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_silences and expire_silence, and the explicit inverse note further differentiates it.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (create a silence) and names the inverse tool (expire_silence) as the alternative for the opposite action. However, it does not exhaustively discuss scenarios where other sibling tools might be preferred, but the inverse mention is a strong guideline.

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