Resolve an alert

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description discloses the important behavioral trait that nothing is sent unless confirm: true and that no server-side dry run exists, plus that a preview is returned otherwise via the schema. It stops short of describing what resolving changes (status semantics, reversibility) or the effect of the idempotency key.

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 compact sentences with the destructive-gating warning front-loaded right after the operation statement. Nothing is padded, though the 'WRITE:' label style is slightly terse and the endpoint path is somewhat redundant with the tool name.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the safety mechanism and target resource but omits what the resolved state means, whether the action is reversible, and what the preview response contains. Adequate to call safely, but an agent still lacks context on outcomes.

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 67% and both optional parameters (confirm, idempotencyKey) already carry descriptions in the schema. The description reinforces the confirm gating but adds no new syntax, defaults, or constraints beyond what the schema states, so it is roughly baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Resolve an alert') and even names the underlying endpoint (POST /v1/alerts/{id}/resolve), so the agent knows exactly what operation is performed. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling alerts_list, but the verb makes the distinction obvious.

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 makes clear this is a write that only executes with confirm: true and notes there is no server-side dry run, which is useful execution guidance. However, it gives no guidance on when to resolve versus listing/inspecting alerts (alerts_list), nor any preconditions such as required permissions or valid alert states.

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