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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds real context beyond them: the secret is returned once, the old secret stops working immediately, and a paused status may be the result of webhook failures. It does not discuss permission requirements or what happens to unspecified fields, and the irreversible invalidation of the old secret sits in mild tension with destructiveHint=false.

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?

Front-loads the mutating fields, then the partial-update rule, then compact JSON examples, then the return shape. Every sentence and example carries distinct information; nothing is padded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the 'Returns {alert, secret?}' line is necessary and present, and the rotation caveat is spelled out. For a six-parameter mutation tool the description is close to complete, with the main remaining gap being replacement-versus-merge semantics for the events list.

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 only 50%, and the description compensates by giving semantics for several fields: the paused/active values, what rotation does and returns, and the events/email_mode/label options. It does not explain whether 'events' replaces the existing list or merges with it, which is the one meaningful ambiguity left.

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 ('Pause or resume an alert, change its events, email_mode or label, or rotate a webhook signing secret') and enumerates the exact mutable surface, so it is immediately distinguishable from subscribe_alert, list_alerts, and delete_alert in the sibling set.

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?

Gives clear operational guidance ('Pass the id and only the fields to change') and three worked examples showing the pause, resume-after-webhook-failure, and rotation cases. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as delete_alert or subscribe_alert as the thing to use instead when the user wants a different outcome, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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