change_alert_status

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions status change and valid codes, but omits side effects (e.g., triggers, reversibility) and required permissions.

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?

Concise, front-loaded main action. However, information is somewhat fragmented (status codes, sibling reference, server in separate phrases). Could be more structured.

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?

Output schema exists so return value details are not needed, but the description lacks clarity on the 'observation' parameter and potential side effects of status changes.

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 0%; description explains status codes and server but not alert_ids (IDs?) or observation (purpose unclear). Only half of the parameters are meaningfully described.

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 'Change the status of one or more alerts' – a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'mark_alert_false_positive' by directing users to that tool for false positives.

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 tells when NOT to use (for false positives) and provides status codes and server usage, but does not explicitly state prerequisites or compare with other siblings like add_alert_notes.

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