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

Annotations already indicate idempotency and non-read-only behavior. The description adds context beyond that by explaining the notification triggers ('when the monitor goes silent or recovers') and the consequence of not setting an alert channel. This enriches behavioral understanding without contradicting 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?

The description is concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds technical detail, and the third explains the usage context. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, when to use it, and the importance of setting an alert channel. It implies prerequisites ('EXISTING') and the id/claim_token are documented in the schema. Given the tool's moderate complexity and the presence of annotations, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description mentions email and webhook types but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides. It provides no additional syntax or format details, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Add or change the alert channel on an EXISTING Cronping check.' It identifies the specific resource (alert channel) and the action (add/change), and explicitly distinguishes it from creating a duplicate, which differentiates it from sibling tools like create_heartbeat.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'use this instead of creating a duplicate' and 'call this once per check.' It also explains when alerts are needed, stating that without an alert channel a check 'tracks status but can't warn you,' clarifying the tool's role relative to alternatives.

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