Close a JSM alert

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

The description discloses important non-obvious behaviors beyond annotations: the action is asynchronous, requires verification via jsm_get_request_status, cannot be reopened, and recurring conditions create a new/fresh alert rather than reviving the record. These traits align with destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true without contradicting them.

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 well-structured with short labeled sections and front-loaded purpose. It is longer than necessary, however, because the Args and Returns sections largely duplicate the schema and output schema, and the example introduces an unsupported parameter. Overall it remains scannable and purposeful.

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?

The description is rich: it covers async behavior, verification, one-way semantics, when to avoid, and the exact return shape. It is incomplete only because of the phantom 'note' parameter in the example, which could cause an agent to construct an invalid request, and because it does not clarify what happens when attempting to close an already-closed 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description introduces a misleading 'note' argument in the example ('note="Resolved by rollback of build 4412"') that is not present in the input schema and would be rejected by additionalProperties:false. The Args section merely restates what the schema already says about alert_id, adding no genuine semantic value beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Close a JSM alert, marking it resolved and ending all notifications for it.' It also clarifies the lifecycle role ('Closing is how an alert leaves the open queue') and implicitly differentiates from acknowledge/delete siblings by noting it is one-way and not for active work.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is provided: 'Prefer jsm_acknowledge_alert while work is still in progress' and 'Don't use when: the alert is still being worked — acknowledge instead.' It also warns the operation is effectively one-way, so the agent understands the consequence before invoking.

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