close_alert

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

Annotations already flag this as destructive, non-idempotent, and open-world, so the description's job is to add context — and it does: the resulting state, the conditional acknowledgment side effect when evt_mgmt.alert_ack_on_close is true, and a documented failure mode for already-Closed alerts. It does not describe permissions required or the response payload, keeping it below a 5.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence states the action, the resulting state, the conditional side effect, and the refusal precondition with zero filler. The [Write] marker is a compact safety signal.

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 two-parameter mutation with rich annotations and no output schema, this covers the state transition, the side effect, the precondition, and optionality of the note. Only the error/return behavior and any permission requirements remain unstated.

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% and both parameters are documented there, so the schema carries the semantics. The description only adds that the work note is optional at close time, which is a marginal addition beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (close an alert) plus the resulting state (state=Closed), which is more than a restatement of the name. It also hints at the acknowledge side effect, which separates it from acknowledge_alert, but it never names that sibling explicitly, so differentiation is implicit rather than spelled out.

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 gives one useful precondition (refuses alerts already Closed) and implies the tool is for final resolution, but it never says when to prefer acknowledge_alert or update_alert instead. An agent must infer the routing from sibling names.

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