alarms_clear_alarm

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Clear a specific alarm' without mentioning any required preconditions (e.g., alarm must be acknowledged), side effects, permissions, or return behavior. This is insufficient for a mutation action.

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 very concise (single sentence), but it sacrifices valuable detail. It is not overly verbose, yet it could be more informative without significant length increase. Balanced at 3.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, required fields, and an output schema present), the description is too sparse. It does not explain the return value (e.g., success indication) or any side effects. The agent is left to guess the full behavior.

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 input schema covers all 5 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, such as clarifying how 'alarm' and 'sequence_number' relate or typical usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Clear') and the resource ('alarm'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'alarms_acknowledge_alarm' or 'alarms_shelve_alarm', which also operate on alarms but with different semantics.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its alternatives (e.g., acknowledge, shelve). The agent must infer from the name alone, which is insufficient for accurate selection among many alarm-related tools.

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