Mute triggered alert

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (a write operation) and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: it discloses the shared-team scope ('changes shared alert state for the whole project team') and the auto-revert duration (24 hours), which is valuable behavioral information an agent wouldn't infer from the schema. The typo 'bisibility' in schema doesn't affect description scoring.

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?

Two concise sentences, zero waste. The first sentence states the action and duration; the second flags the shared side effect. Every word earns its place 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?

For a single-state mutation with no output schema (muting is a simple toggle), the description covers the key points: what it does, how long it lasts, and its team-wide scope. The undocumented idempotency_key parameter is a minor gap, but given the tool's simplicity, the description is reasonably 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?

Schema description coverage is 67% — alert_id and project_id are documented in the schema, but idempotency_key has no schema-level description. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides (it doesn't explain what idempotency_key does or its format). With moderate coverage, the description doesn't need to compensate heavily but could add context on the idempotency parameter's purpose.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Mute one firing alert') with a clear duration ('for 24 hours'). It clearly states the scope (one firing alert) and duration, distinguishing it from similar alert operations. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 states the duration implicitly ('for 24 hours') and notes the shared project-level side effect, giving some usage context. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance, nor what to do if the alert is already muted or how this differs from other alert-related mutations like mark_project_alerts_read or delete_alert_rule.

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