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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), lowering the bar. The description still adds value beyond them: it declares an auth requirement (verified account, scope `alertas:write`) and a notable side-effect (no email is sent). It omits that omitted fields are required-vs-replaced semantics, but the auth and no-notification disclosures are genuine additions.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then the operational caveat. No filler; every clause 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?

For a nested-object mutation with 7 params, rich schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers purpose, auth, and the no-email behavior. Its main omission is update semantics (full replace vs partial) and plan-gating notes that live only in the schema, but overall it is complete enough to call correctly.

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 100%, so the nested schema fully documents every field, enum, and constraint. The description's list of editable fields mirrors what the schema already shows, adding no syntax or format detail beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load.

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 (Modifica) and resource (una alerta existente), and even enumerates which fields can change (nombre, criterios, tipos, cadencia, canales, horas de silencio). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling alertas_crear, though the 'existente' qualifier implicitly differentiates an update from a create.

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 context is implied: this is the update operation for an existing alert, and the required `id` from alertas_listar signals a prerequisite. But the description states no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and never names the alternative (alertas_crear) or dependencies. Adequate-but-with-gaps.

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