resolve_alert

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states the tool marks an alert as resolved, but omits any side effects, permissions required, or whether the action is reversible. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient to inform an AI agent about potential impacts.

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 extremely concise with no extraneous text, and the parameter table is efficiently structured. Every sentence earns its place, and the purpose is immediately clear.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description covers the action and parameter semantics adequately for a simple mutation tool. However, it does not explain the return value, error conditions, or expected behavior (e.g., whether the alert is closed permanently). This is a minimal viable description but not complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully contextualizes both parameters. For alert_id, it specifies the source (aus get_alerts), and for resolution_note, it adds 'Optionale Notiz zur Loesung' (optional note for resolution), which goes beyond the schema's default value and naming.

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 the verb 'Markiert' (marks) and the resource 'Alert', with the outcome 'als geloest' (as resolved). While it distinguishes from sibling tools like get_alerts by indicating a write action, it does not explicitly contrast with other mutation tools like register_device or send_command, but the purpose is sufficiently clear.

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?

No guidelines are provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as interacting with alerts via other functions. The description implies usage after get_alerts (via alert_id sourcing), but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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