Resolve Governance Alert

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the action 'cannot be undone,' it 'does not fix what raised the alert,' and it requires organization context. The irreversibility and root-cause caveat are exactly the kind of consequences an agent needs to know before invoking a destructive tool.

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 sentences, each doing distinct work: the core action, the consequences, and the prerequisite/source. The main verb is front-loaded, and there is zero filler. Every sentence 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 tool with one required parameter, no output schema, no enums, and annotations already covering the destructive profile, the description is complete. An agent knows what it does, what the side effects are, where the ID comes from, and what context is needed.

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 the schema already documents alertId as a GUID string. The description adds value by telling the agent where valid values come from ('Alert IDs come from list_governance_alerts'), which goes beyond the baseline for fully-covered schema parameters.

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 states a specific verb plus resource: 'Mark a governance alert as resolved.' It clearly anchors the tool in the governance-alert domain, distinguishing it from siblings like list_governance_alerts (listing) and resolve_variables (a different resource). The action is unambiguous and not a tautology of the name.

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 clear usage context: 'Alert IDs come from list_governance_alerts' tells the agent the prerequisite workflow, and 'Requires organization context' sets an invocation precondition. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but for this action there is no obvious sibling alternative to exclude.

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