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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly warns that this is a WRITE operation that mutates DC account data, and clarifies partial-update semantics ('Only provide the fields you want to change'). This discloses the key behavioral trait without needing 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 extremely concise: three sentences covering the endpoint, the update behavior, and a mutation warning. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 partial-update tool with a comprehensive schema and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core behavior, the mutating nature, and the usage pattern. It doesn't cover response details or error cases, but these are not specified in the schema either, and the description is adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all 6 parameters. The description adds valuable semantic context beyond the schema by explaining that only provided fields will be changed, which is essential for correct partial updates. This elevates the score above the baseline of 3.

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 'Update an alert' and specifies the PATCH /alerts/:alertID endpoint, making it obvious this is the update operation for a specific alert. This distinguishes it from siblings like alerts_create and alerts_by_id_delete.

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 clear context that this tool updates existing alerts and instructs users to provide only the fields they want to change. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion scenarios, the context is unambiguous enough for tool selection among siblings.

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