Resolve an ITOC360 alert

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

Annotations already convey idempotence (idempotentHint=true) and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false). The description adds contextual detail about stopping escalation and requiring a matching fingerprint, but does not go much beyond the annotations. No contradiction exists.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The action, object, key constraint, and idempotence note are all front-loaded and each sentence carries necessary meaning.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema, the combination of description and schema is complete. The agent knows what the tool does, how to identify the target alert, and what to expect when retrying or double-resolving.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the fingerprint-matching constraint already present in the schema, but adds little semantic value beyond it. The summary and description parameters are already well explained in the schema.

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 names a specific verb ('Close'), a specific resource ('an alert'), and ties it to its sibling tool send_alert, so an agent can immediately distinguish resolve_alert from send_alert. It also states the key consequence ('stopping further escalation'), making the tool's 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 clearly communicates this is for closing alerts raised via send_alert, and notes that resolving an already-closed alert is harmless. It does not explicitly list exclusions or say 'use send_alert instead when raising', but the pairing is strongly implied and sufficient for a two-tool context.

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