resolve_anomaly

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that it's a 'Write operation — recorded in the audit log' and notes that automatic resolution may still occur later, indicating it's not a permanent override. However, it does not mention permission requirements or potential side effects.

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 7 sentences, each earning its place. The purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by usage guidance, behavioral notes, and parameter details. No redundant or vague statements.

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 2 simple parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the operation purpose, usage context, behavioral traits (write/audit), and parameter explanations. It is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to select and invoke 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 coverage is 0%, but the description's Args section adds meaningful context: anomaly_id is described as 'UUID of the anomaly to resolve (from list_anomalies)' and reason as 'Optional free-text explanation'. This provides origin and optionality beyond the raw schema types and titles.

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 'Manually mark an anomaly as resolved', which uses a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_anomalies and get_open_anomalies by specifying it's a manual resolution action, and contrasts with automatic resolution.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use when the underlying issue has been addressed outside VibOps' and explains that automatic resolution still applies otherwise. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, referencing the alternative automatic process.

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