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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false and idempotent=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them: the auth scope requirement and the clarification that no email is dispatched (i.e. editing does not fire a notification). It does not clarify that all six fields are required (full replacement rather than a patch), which is the remaining gap.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the editable fields, then the prerequisite, then the behavioral note. No filler.

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?

With an output schema, full annotation set, and 100%-documented nested parameters, the description only needs to cover intent, auth, and side effects — which it does. It stops just short of stating that the call replaces the whole alert definition rather than patching it.

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% and the nested criterios/quiet_hours objects are richly documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description only lists field names already enumerated in the schema and adds no format, default, or constraint detail beyond it.

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 and resource ("Modifica una alerta existente") and enumerates the editable surface (nombre, criterios, tipos, cadencia, canales, horas de silencio). The word "existente" implicitly separates it from alertas_crear, but it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

It gives a real prerequisite (verified account, scope `alertas:write`), which is genuine usage guidance, but there is no when-to-use vs alertas_crear/alertas_activar/alertas_previsualizar routing. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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