update_alert_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly identifies the tool as a mutation ('Update'), but it does not mention any side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or whether changes are reversible. For a simple status update, this is minimally acceptable but lacks depth.

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 a single, concise sentence that conveys all necessary information without any superfluous words or repetition. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 simple nature of the tool (updating a status with three well-defined parameters, all documented in the schema, and no output schema needed), the description is complete. It covers the what and the allowed values, which is sufficient for this operation.

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% (all three parameters have descriptions in the schema). The tool's description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. For example, it does not explain the relationship between assignee_email and status changes. Hence, the description adds no extra value over the schema, fitting the baseline of 3.

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 action ('Update'), the specific resource ('status of an InsightIDR alert'), and enumerates the allowed status values ('open, investigating, or closed'). This provides a precise verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_alert or list_alerts.

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 makes it clear that this tool is used to update alert status. While it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, the context is unambiguous given the tool's name and the sibling tools (e.g., update_investigation applies to a different resource). No exclusions are stated, but the purpose is self-evident.

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