auto_silence_noisy_alert

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it is a mutation that updates alerts.silenced_until and emits audit events, details dryRun vs. actual execution, idempotency mechanism, per-account scoping, and the absence of a founder gate for paid users. This is comprehensive and adds significant context.

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 relatively long but efficiently structured with clear sections for purpose, parameters, behavior, and output. Every sentence adds value, though some minor redundancy exists (e.g., repeating endpoint details). It is front-loaded with the core use case.

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 (6 parameters, no output schema), the description is very complete: it explains both dryRun and actual outputs, idempotency, permissions, and relationships with sibling tools. Minor omissions include explicit error conditions or rate limits, but overall it provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

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 6 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), but the description adds important context beyond the schema: it explains the mutual exclusivity of alertId and byVolumeThreshold, default and range for silenceDurationMinutes, optional reason, dryRun behavior, and approvalId usage. It also describes the idempotency mechanism, which is not in 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 tool is for bulk-silencing noisy alerts that fired repeatedly in the past hour, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like silence_alert and unsilence_alert by emphasizing the automated, volume-based triggering and the reversal capability.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool (e.g., finishing the prompt about repeated alerts) and how to choose between alertId and byVolumeThreshold. It mentions that unsilence_alert can undo the action and that Pro+ users can call it directly, but it could be improved by explicitly stating when not to use it (e.g., for single alert without volume criteria).

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