unsilence_monitor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover the safety and mutation profile. The description adds only the trigger condition for use, not deeper behavioral details like required prior state or scope-matching semantics. The scope constraint is in the parameter schema description, not the main description.

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 short sentences, with the purpose in the first and usage guidance in the second. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant phrasing or filler.

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 two-parameter tool with a complete schema and output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and the appropriate timing. It could have explicitly mentioned that the scope must match the mute scope in the main description, but that is already in the parameter description. It does not need to explain return values since an output schema exists.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with both parameters documented: monitor_id ('Monitor to unmute') and scope ('Unmute a specific scope (must match the mute scope)'). The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics. The baseline of 3 applies when the schema is comprehensive.

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 uses the specific verb 'Resume' with the resource 'notifications from a muted monitor', clearly identifying the action. The context line 'Use this when: maintenance is complete or ready to receive alerts again' reinforces the tool's role. The name unsilence_monitor and sibling silence_monitor make the distinction obvious.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'maintenance is complete or ready to receive alerts again.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to a specific alternative, but the sibling silence_monitor is the obvious inverse. This is clear situational guidance, though not as explicit as a full when/when-not breakdown.

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