pd_resolve_alert

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses safe-by-default behavior with dry_run and the requirement for env vars, but does not discuss idempotency, error states, rate limits, or consequences of resolution. Some behavioral context is provided, but key aspects are omitted.

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 three sentences: purpose, dry_run safety, and env var requirements. It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no superfluous information.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what reason and confirm_token are for, does not specify return values or behaviors (especially for a non-dry-run call), and omits error handling or success criteria.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the dry_run parameter's safety behavior, but provides no meaning for incident_id, reason, or confirm_token. Only one of four parameters gains additional clarity, leaving significant gaps.

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 resolves a PagerDuty incident via the REST API. The verb 'resolve' and resource 'PagerDuty incident' are specific, and the tool is distinct from sibling tools like pd_acknowledge_alert which acknowledges rather than resolves.

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 mentions required environment variables but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pd_acknowledge_alert. There is no indication of prerequisites or conditions that would make this tool more appropriate than others.

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