Resolve alert

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the mutating action, the 400 rejection for CRITICAL alerts, and the self-clearing behavior once the underlying problem is fixed. This is significant contextual information beyond what the schema provides, though it doesn't describe success responses or 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?

The description is two concise sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second adds crucial constraints and error behavior. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy 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 single-parameter action tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, usage constraints, error condition, and body requirements. It doesn't specify the success return value, but this is a minor omission given the tool's simplicity and the detailed schema.

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 schema already thoroughly describes alert_id, including its source (list_alerts response) and semantic string nature. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond noting the absence of a request body, which is request-level rather than parameter-level info.

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 'Mark an alert as resolved,' a specific verb+resource that clearly defines the tool's function. It distinguishes from siblings like list_alerts by focusing on the resolution action, making the purpose immediately clear.

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: only WARNING alerts can be closed by hand, and active CRITICAL alerts are rejected with 400. This provides clear usage context and a when-not condition, plus the note that no request body is required simplifies invocation.

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