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

Annotations already establish this is a non-read, non-destructive, idempotent mutation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the auth scope requirement (`alertas:write`) and the side-effect statement 'No envía correo'. This helps the agent understand what the operation does and does not trigger.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and scope of fields; the second adds the key prerequisites and behavioral note. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the rich input schema, output schema, and annotations, the description is nearly complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool. It covers the purpose, the affected resource, required scope, and a notable side-effect. A small gap is that it does not clarify whether the update is partial or a full replacement of the alert configuration.

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 57%, so the schema carries much of the parameter documentation. The description adds a high-level grouping of fields (nombre, criterios, tipos, cadencia, canales, horas de silencio) but does not explain semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It partially compensates for the uncovered top-level parameters like `quiet_hours` by naming the concept.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Modifica una alerta existente' (modify an existing alert), followed by a list of editable fields. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like alertas_crear (create) and alertas_eliminar (delete) through the word 'existente'.

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 makes clear this is for editing an existing alert, which implies it should not be used for creation or listing. It also states a concrete precondition: requires a verified account with scope `alertas:write`. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the usage context is reasonably clear.

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