activate_alert

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'activate' and gives a usage example. It does not describe side effects, authentication needs, idempotency, or what happens if the alert is already active. The lack of detail limits transparency.

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 extremely concise: one sentence and a code block. It is front-loaded with the purpose. Every part earns its place; the code block helps agent understand the exact structure expected, which is useful despite schema repetition.

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 simple tool with two string parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states the action and gives a usage example, which covers basic usage. However, it omits details like response format, error conditions, and prerequisites (e.g., alert must exist). Given the lack of annotations, it feels slightly incomplete.

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 no descriptions for parameters, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description only provides a usage example with placeholders (`<id>`, `<alertId>`) but adds no semantic meaning about what these IDs represent or their format. This adds minimal value beyond the parameter names.

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 action: 'Activate a previously created alert.' It uses a specific verb ('activate') and resource ('alert'). The sibling tools (create_alert, delete_alert, get_alerts) are distinct, so the agent can differentiate this tool for activation only.

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 explicitly mentions that the alert must be 'previously created,' providing context for when to use the tool. It includes a usage example with the required JSON structure. However, it does not specify when not to use it (e.g., if the alert is already active) or mention alternatives, but the sibling names fill some gaps.

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