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

The annotations already establish non-readOnly, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior, so the description adds useful context beyond them: the operation is scoped to the user's own alert, does not delete it, and requires a verified account with the alertas:write scope. No contradiction with the 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the auth requirement. Every sentence adds value and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 simple two-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers purpose, ownership, non-destructiveness, and authentication requirements. The only notable omission is explicit parameter value semantics, but the simplicity of id and activa makes this a minor gap rather than a completeness failure.

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 carries the burden, but it only partially compensates: 'Activa o pausa' explains the semantic effect that the boolean activa field likely controls, and 'una alerta tuya' implies id identifies an owned alert. However, it does not explicitly map true/false to activate/pause or define the id parameter, so the agent must infer the mapping.

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 states a specific action (activate or pause) on a specific resource (one of the user's alerts) and explicitly notes it does not delete the alert, which distinguishes it from alertas_eliminar and other alert siblings. The title and description align and leave no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives clear context: it is for activating or pausing an alert the user owns, not for deleting it, and it states a prerequisite (verified account with alertas:write scope). It does not explicitly name alternatives like alertas_editar or alertas_eliminar, but the intended use is evident from the sibling names and the action described.

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