Triage Microsoft Defender alerts by updating status, assignee, classification, and determination.
Update an alert (a triage write): status, assignee, classification and determination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | Alert status. | |
| alert_id | Yes | The alert ID. | |
| assigned_to | No | Owner (UPN or email). | |
| determination | No | Determination. | |
| classification | No | Classification. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Update' aligns with those. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotation, such as clarifying it is a triage write, but does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, or the behavior of omitted fields. It does not contradict annotations and provides only slight added value.
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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then enumerates the key fields. There is no filler or redundant wording; every part 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?
The tool has five parameters, one required, and no output schema, so some guidance on usage nuances (like whether partial updates are allowed, or any dependencies between fields) would be helpful. The schema covers parameter types, but the description does not explain the full context of how the update behaves. It is adequate but not complete for a mutation tool.
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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description paraphrases the fields (e.g., 'assignee' for assigned_to) and groups them as a triage write, but it does not add meaningful detail about value constraints or relationships. This is consistent with the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.
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 states a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('an alert'), and lists the exact fields affected: status, assignee, classification, determination. This clearly distinguishes it from alert-related siblings like defender_get_alert, defender_list_alerts, or defender_add_alert_comment, and from the similar defender_update_incident.
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 usage for triage writes by calling it 'a triage write' and listing the fields, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as defender_add_alert_comment or defender_update_incident. There are no exclusions or conditional guidance, so it falls at the 'implied usage' level.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.