archive_all_alarms

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

The description clearly discloses the behavioral effect beyond the idempotentHint annotation: it marks open alarms as archived, changes no device configuration, and affects what get_alarms returns. This gives the agent a precise mental model of the side effects.

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 main explanation is compact and front-loaded, with the action, behavior, and usage guidance in the first sentences. The Args section is redundant with the schema, but it is short and does not meaningfully hurt clarity.

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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, side effects, and alternative tools. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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%, and the description's Args section merely repeats the schema's field descriptions verbatim. It adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the input schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action and resource: 'Acknowledge and archive every active alarm on a site.' It also differentiates itself from get_alarms and analyze_network_issues, so an agent can tell exactly what this tool does and what it is not.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use get_alarms first to review what will be cleared' and 'prefer analyze_network_issues when you want findings without clearing alarm state.' This clearly routes the agent to the right tool for adjacent tasks.

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