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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context on top: patch-style partial updates, that `tags` overwrites the entire list, that an empty `alert_email` reverts alerts to all team members, and that the response returns the snitch with its token masked.

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 tight sentences, each carrying distinct information, with the write/partial-update constraint front-loaded and the destructive tag-replacement caveat immediately after. 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?

No output schema exists, yet the description tells the agent what comes back (updated snitch, masked token) and covers the mutation's irreversibility for tags. Combined with 100% schema coverage and full annotations, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by clarifying cross-parameter semantics the schema does not convey (tags is a full replacement, empty alert_email means all team members). It does not, however, speak to the interval/alert_type enums, which remain schema-only.

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 ('WRITE: change a snitch') and pins the operation to PATCH /v1/snitches/{token}. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling deadmanssnitch_add_tags, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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 the operative semantics ('Only the fields you pass change') and names the alternative plus the condition that selects it: use deadmanssnitch_add_tags to add tags rather than replacing the list here. Both the when and the when-not are present.

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