snowflake_resume_alert

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Resume a suspended alert' and omits any side effects, permission requirements, idempotency, or what happens if the alert is not in a suspended state. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 at one sentence, but it conveys minimal information beyond the name. While it is not verbose, it does not 'earn its place' because it adds little value. It is appropriately short but lacks substance.

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 presence of three parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain when to invoke the tool, what inputs are needed, or any expectations about the result (despite an output schema being present but not described). An agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without further guidance.

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 has zero description coverage for its three parameters (database, alert_name, schema_name). The description adds no explanation of what these parameters mean, how they relate, or whether database and schema_name are optional. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 'Resume a suspended alert' clearly states the verb (resume) and the resource (alert), making the primary purpose unambiguous. It aligns with the tool name and distinguishes it from suspend_alert, though it does not explicitly mention any differentiating nuances beyond the action itself.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention preconditions (e.g., the alert must be suspended), suggest related tools, or explain context such as requiring the alert to exist. Users must infer usage solely from the tool name and the existence of snowflake_suspend_alert.

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