resolve_threat_alert

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns that the status change is irreversible and advises user confirmation before calling, which is critical safety information for an agent. It does not disclose authentication requirements or error behavior, but for a simple state change, this is sufficient. The irreversibility warning goes beyond a generic mutation and earns a 4.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the action, immediately followed by the crucial irreversibility warning and a business-requirement note. Every phrase earns its place with no filler, making it both efficient and effective.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: the operation, the irreversible side effect, and a usage context. It doesn't describe return values, but the absence of an output schema makes that less critical. It could hint at error conditions (e.g., invalid GUID), but given the simplicity, it's sufficiently complete.

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 single parameter 'guid' is already fully described in the schema (description: '해결 처리할 알림의 GUID'). The tool description only repeats 'GUID' without adding format, constraints, or usage details. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no extra value here, keeping the score at the baseline 3.

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 (change a specific Threat Response alert to Resolved) with a specific resource (alert identified by GUID) and the effect (state change). It stands out from the sibling tools, which are all get_* read operations, as the only mutation tool, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 conveys the context (threat response handling) and implicitly distinguishes itself from all get_* siblings by being the only state-changing tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but given the sibling list, the intended usage is clear. A strong but not explicit exclusion keeps this at 4 rather than 5.

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