Alerts Resume Alert

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world mutation. The description adds nothing beyond that: no statement about what resuming does to the alert's schedule/state, what permissions are needed, or whether it errors on an already-active alert.

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?

One short sentence with no waste, but it is underspecified rather than efficiently complete – nothing is front-loaded beyond the basic operation.

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 state-changing tool that acts on a specific alert within an optional database/schema, an agent would want to know the precondition (alert suspended) and effect. Output schema and annotations exist, but the description leaves the behavioral contract essentially empty.

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 all three parameters (alert_name, database, schema_name) are documented in the schema, and the baseline applies. The description does not add naming/quoting or scoping semantics beyond what the schema already says.

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 ('Resume ... alert'), which is unambiguous about the operation. It does not differentiate from the complementary sibling alerts_suspend_alert or explain how resuming relates to alert state.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no indication that the alert must currently be suspended, and no mention of any prerequisite or follow-up step.

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