Dismiss an alert

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

The description adds the behavioral detail that the dismissal is scoped to the authenticated user, which goes slightly beyond the annotations. Annotations already indicate a non-readonly, non-destructive operation. No contradiction, but little extra beyond the user scoping.

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 short sentences with no filler. The key action is front-loaded and the clarification is brief. Every word earns its place.

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 that mutates alert state and has sibling alternatives, the description leaves out critical context: what alertId refers to, how it relates to acknowledged alerts, and what the outcome looks like. An agent cannot reliably decide or execute without more guidance.

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?

The description does not explain the alertId parameter at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent must infer its meaning from the parameter name alone. This is insufficient for a parameter that is needed to identify the alert to dismiss.

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 'dismiss' and the resource 'alert', and adds the scope 'for the authenticated user'. It is specific enough to convey the core action, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling 'acknowledge_alert_firing' tool.

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 implies when to use the tool (when an alert should be dismissed) but gives no explicit guidance on alternatives or when not to use it. With sibling tools like 'acknowledge_alert_firing' doing similar state changes, the lack of differentiation is a gap.

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