mcp-ninjaone

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs a write operation ('reset' implying mutation) and specifies the action as 'acknowledge and clear,' which adds context beyond a generic 'reset.' However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., if the alert is permanently deleted or archived), or error conditions, leaving gaps 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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose and required input, and the second provides usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the core action and efficiently includes only essential 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 the tool's complexity (a mutation with one parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, usage, and input sourcing. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions or response format, which would be beneficial for full completeness in a mutation context.

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 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'alert_uid' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, but since there is only one parameter and schema coverage is complete, the baseline is high. The description's mention of using sibling tools to find the UID provides practical context, slightly enhancing semantics.

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 specific action ('reset' meaning 'acknowledge and clear'), the resource ('an active alert'), and the required identifier ('by its UID'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like list_alerts and list_device_alerts by specifying its unique write operation versus their read operations.

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 provides when to use this tool ('to reset an active alert') and includes clear alternatives for finding the required input ('Use list_alerts or list_device_alerts to find the alert UID'), guiding the agent on prerequisite steps and tool selection.

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