boond_alerts_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It states that the tool updates status and mentions 'resolved,' but it does not explain side effects, whether the resolved flag can be set to false, authentication/authorization requirements, idempotency, or the shape of the response. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise and immediately states the tool's action, though it omits needed detail.

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 that the tool has two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is under-specified. An agent cannot tell what the tool returns, what happens if resolved is omitted, or whether the operation is reversible. The description is adequate only for the narrowest interpretation of marking an alert resolved.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'resolved' relates to the alert status and suggests the typical use case of marking as resolved, but it does not explain the full semantics of the boolean (e.g., false meaning un-resolved) or the id parameter. This is partial compensation.

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 uses the specific verb 'Update' and identifies the resource as 'alert status,' with the parenthetical 'mark as resolved' clarifying the intended operation. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like boond_alerts_search and boond_alerts_get, which are read operations, and from update tools on other resources.

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?

There is no explicit statement about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. The purpose is implied by the name and description, but no guidance is given about prerequisites (e.g., fetching the alert first) or when not to use it.

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