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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is handled. The description adds the app-only scoping constraint and hints that updates are partial (fields can be individually changed), but says nothing about what happens to omitted fields, required permissions, or effects on a running alert.

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?

A single sentence with the key scoping qualifier ("App only:") front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately tight, though the brevity is partly achieved at the cost of the missing parameter detail.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with zero schema coverage and no output schema, the description is too thin: two of six parameters are addressed, one only obliquely, and there is no guidance on partial-update semantics or return behavior. An agent would need to guess at enabled/notify_when meaning.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It names only name and schedule and gestures vaguely at query_id via "screen on display"; enabled and notify_when — both nullable and non-obvious — go completely unexplained, as do accepted formats for schedule and notify_when.

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 has a verb ("points ... at", "changes") and resource (alert, name, schedule), and the "App only" prefix separates it from the general update_alert sibling. However, the phrase "points an existing alert at the screen on display" is ambiguous — an agent cannot tell whether this means query_id rebinding, a display target, or something else, and the purpose is only partially conveyed.

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?

"App only" gives a conditional scope that implies when to prefer this over the generic update_alert sibling, which is useful. But no explicit when-not, no statement of prerequisites, and no mention of the other alert siblings (create/delete/options) or how this differs from update_alert beyond the app qualifier.

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