resolve_alert

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It transparently discloses the key side effect: the monitor is disabled, not just the alert resolved. It also mentions auto-resolve behavior and the ability to reactivate with enable_monitor, giving a clear picture of the tool's impact.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the action, the second provides context, and the third gives recovery guidance. No fluff, front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains what, why, and how to reverse, but doesn't mention edge cases (e.g., alert already resolved or monitor already disabled) or explicitly compare with disable_monitor. Still, it is sufficient for effective use.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already describes monitor_id as the "Monitor ID of the alert to resolve." The description adds minimal further meaning by clarifying that the monitor itself is disabled, but this is largely implied. 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 clearly states the specific action: "Resolve an active alert by disabling its monitor." It names the verb (resolve), the resource (alert), and the mechanism (disabling monitor), distinguishing it from other monitor-related tools like disable_monitor and delete_monitor.

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 provides context for when to use the tool: for manual resolution when auto-resolve doesn't happen. It also names the follow-up tool (enable_monitor) for reactivation. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with disable_monitor when you only want to disable without resolving an alert, so it's not a full when-not-to-use.

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