Alert Unmute

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds nothing beyond the schema about edge-case behavior (e.g., unmuting an already-unmuted alert), but with annotations present the bar is lower and there is no contradiction.

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?

A single nine-word sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and contains zero filler. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter mutation with annotations and an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. However, the large sibling list contains alert_acknowledge, a closely related operation, and the description offers no contrast to help an agent decide between acknowledging and unmuting an alert.

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% — alert_id is already fully documented with type, minimum value, and a description. The tool description merely repeats 'by ID' and adds no extra meaning such as where to source the ID or how it maps to LibreNMS alert identifiers. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('unmute') with a clear resource ('alert'), system ('LibreNMS'), and method ('by ID'). It distinguishes itself from siblings such as alert_get_by_id, alerts_get, and alert_acknowledge — an agent can tell this is the inverse operation without opening any schemas.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alert_acknowledge or alerts_get, and no prerequisites are stated (e.g., the alert must currently be muted, or that the ID typically comes from alerts_get). Usage is only implied by the verb, which is not enough for reliable tool selection.

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