rmm_delete_alert

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

With no annotations, the description effectively discloses the soft-delete behavior (sets resolved=true, alert still readable) and the mandatory confirmation. This covers key behavioral traits beyond the schema.

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 concise: two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the action, the second adds behavioral detail and a requirement. Information is front-loaded.

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 simplicity (2 required parameters, no output schema), the description covers purpose, behavior, and a usage requirement. It omits return values or error conditions, but is largely complete for the context.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra context by reinforcing that confirmed must be true and linking it to user confirmation, but does not significantly augment parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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: DELETE (soft-resolve) an RMM alert. It specifies that it sets resolved=true and the alert remains readable via GET, distinguishing it from a hard delete or mute operation.

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 when a soft-resolve is needed and explicitly requires user confirmation via the confirmed parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives.

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