mute_monitors_by_service

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains that a mute rule is created and specifies behavior for monitorNames (if omitted, all service monitors are muted). However, it does not disclose if rule creation is additive, overwrites existing rules, or any authorization/rate limit details.

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?

Single sentence with clear verb and service examples. No wasted words. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., list key points) but acceptable for the complexity.

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?

No output schema, 6 parameters including nested objects, no annotations. The description covers the core function but lacks details on return values, error cases, or interaction with other mute rules. Adequate for understanding but not comprehensive.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description adds minimal new information beyond 'by creating a targeted mute rule' and the examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does most of the work.

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 mutes monitors for specific services by creating a targeted mute rule, with examples (SQS, RDS, EC2). This distinguishes it from siblings like mute_resources_by_wildcard or the generic create_mute_rule, which are broader in scope.

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 use for service-level muting but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like mute_resources_by_wildcard or get_mute_monitors. No guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites (e.g., existing monitors).

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