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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false without contradiction. The description adds behavioral context beyond that: partial-update semantics and the cascading consequence that disabling stops every notification routed to the destination, which is a meaningful side effect not visible in the schema or annotations.

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?

Four short sentences, all front-loaded and earning their place: the verb, the partial-update rule, the disabling consequence and the scope exclusion. Nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior, and it does so adequately: mutable fields, partial-update semantics, disabling effect, and immutability of URL/channel. Minor gaps remain around whether the updated destination is returned and any template format requirements, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds real meaning: it clarifies that only supplied fields mutate and that URL/channel are deliberately absent as parameters here. It nonetheless adds no format hints for name/template beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 (update) and resource (alert destination) and enumerates exactly which fields are mutable (name, description, message template, enabled flag). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by declaring that URL/channel changes happen elsewhere, so an agent can tell it apart from create/delete/portal operations without opening a schema.

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?

Clearly establishes the partial-update contract ('Only the fields you pass change') and an explicit exclusion ('URL or channel ... never here'), pointing the agent to the portal/CLI instead. It does not name a specific sibling tool as the alternative, but the when-to-use condition and the negation of unsupported use are well covered.

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