mute_alerts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses [WRITE] and risk=medium, describes the operation as time-boxed, and implicitly indicates reversibility via unmute_alerts. This is useful context beyond the schema, though it omits details about side effects such as whether existing alerts are immediately silenced.

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 compact, front-loaded with the write/risk marker and purpose, and each line earns its place. The parameter list is formatted for quick parsing.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides enough information to call it correctly: purpose, duration, target selection, and inverse operation. A minor gap is that it does not clarify what happens to currently firing alerts during the suppression window, which would round out the behavioral picture.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: entity_uri with a useful source hint (list_muted / SWQL), minutes as the suppression window, and target as an optional config-derived name. This goes well beyond the bare schema.

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 the operation: 'Time-boxed alert suppression for an entity', giving a specific action and target resource. It also names the inverse tool (unmute_alerts), which distinguishes it from the closest sibling.

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 identifies unmute_alerts as the inverse, giving the agent a clear alternative for undoing the action. It implies the natural use case is temporary suppression, though it does not explicitly state when not to use mute_alerts or compare it with other alert-management tools.

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