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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the risk profile is largely covered. The description adds genuine value with the partial-update rule ('only the fields sent change'), which the annotations do not convey. It does not, however, explain what destruction means here (e.g., overwriting color or archiving via isArchived) or what the response looks like.

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?

Two short sentences are properly front-loaded with the operation and ID key, but the second sentence is a broken template artifact rather than content. A third of the text is effectively wasted, and the space that should have enumerated updatable fields is missing.

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 six-parameter mutation with a nested object, no output schema, and destructiveHint=true, the definition should at minimum enumerate the mutable fields and clarify archiving behavior. Instead it supplies a broken field pointer, leaving the agent to reverse-engineer the 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?

Schema description coverage is only 17% of six parameters, so the description must compensate and does not: none of name, color, order, isArchived or description is explained, and the nested color object's _type/value shape is untouched. Worse, the lone field reference 'oneuptime_describe_resource' is a dangling tool name that provides zero semantic information and could mislead an agent into calling a different tool.

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 opening clause 'Update one Alert Severity by ID' gives a specific verb plus resource and a keyed target, which cleanly separates it from create_alert_severity, delete_alert_severity, get_alert_severity and list_alert_severities. The trailing sentence 'Fields: oneuptime_describe_resource' muddies the purpose by naming a sibling discovery tool instead of listing fields, but the core operation remains identifiable.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool updates an existing severity rather than creating one, and 'only the fields sent change' signals a partial-update pattern. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over update_alert or create_alert_severity, nor any prerequisite such as needing the ID from list_alert_severities.

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