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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds context annotations cannot: it is a WRITE available to any authenticated user, and it spells out the consequence of each value (ENABLED = evaluated, DISABLED = not evaluated), which is effectively what makes the destructive flag meaningful. It does not cover failure behavior for an unknown ruleId.

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 with the core action front-loaded and zero filler. The WRITE/auth note and the value semantics each add distinct information rather than repeating the title.

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 two-parameter, fully documented mutation with a rich annotation set and no output schema, the description supplies the missing pieces: auth scope and the meaning of each status. Only error/edge-case behavior (e.g., nonexistent ruleId) is absent, which is a minor gap.

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 baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema's bare 'ENABLED or DISABLED' by explaining what each value means operationally (rule is evaluated vs. not). ruleId is left entirely to the schema.

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 ('Set an alert rule's status'), which clearly separates it from sibling mutations such as save_alert_rule, delete_alert_rule, preview_alert_rule and set_alert_rule_destinations. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative siblings are named (preview_alert_rule, delete_alert_rule, save_alert_rule would all be plausible neighbors for an agent reasoning about alert rules). The closest thing to guidance is the semantic gloss on the two status values.

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