sophos_snooze_health_check

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

Annotations already indicate a non-destructive write (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds that snoozing is done by specifying categories/sub-categories, but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., impact on alerting, duration, or undo capability). The input structure hint is helpful but not behavioral.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the purpose, and wastes no words. It efficiently communicates the action, scope, and a key structural hint.

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 the nested object parameters and no output schema, the description provides a structural hint but lacks information on expected outcomes, persistence, or how to revert a snooze. It is adequate but could be improved with brief behavioral context.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the endpoint and networkDevice objects should mirror the health-check response structure, providing critical contextual guidance beyond the schema's property descriptions.

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 tool's action ('Snooze') and resource ('specific health check findings for endpoint or network device categories'). It differentiates the tool from sibling health-check query tools by specifying this is for suppression/action.

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 implies usage by stating the input structure mirrors the health-check response, but it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus others (e.g., after reviewing health scores) or when not to use it. No alternatives or prerequisites are mentioned.

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