reset_vcenter_alarm

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

The description explicitly marks the tool as '[WRITE]' and explains that it clears the alarm completely from the active list, adding behavioral context beyond the annotations. While annotations already indicate a write operation, the description details the effect on alarm state, which is valuable.

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 concise and well-structured, using a brief opening sentence followed by clear argument definitions. Every sentence adds value, and the format is easy to parse, with no redundant information.

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 tool's simplicity (reset an alarm), the description covers the purpose, usage guidance, and parameter details sufficiently. No output schema exists, but the description implies the action is complete upon success, which is adequate for this context.

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 description provides meaningful explanations for all three parameters, including the types and sources for entity_name and alarm_name, and clarification for the optional target. Since the input schema only has titles (0% schema description coverage), the description fully compensates by adding essential semantic context.

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 it resets a triggered vCenter alarm to cleared state, using the verb 'reset' and specifying the resource 'vCenter alarm'. It distinguishes from sibling 'acknowledge_vcenter_alarm' by indicating a more permanent action (clearing vs. acknowledging).

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 advises using this tool after resolving the underlying issue and references 'list_vcenter_alarms' to find required parameter values, providing clear when-to-use and prerequisite steps. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling 'acknowledge_vcenter_alarm' for scenarios where acknowledgment might be more appropriate.

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