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

The description discloses important side-effect semantics beyond annotations: only passed fields change, entities/notifications/filters are replaced wholesale, an alert watches exactly one entity, and speaker_roles on an ENTITY_MENTION alert returns unprocessable_entity. These details let the agent predict behavior and avoid errors. The annotations contain only destructiveHint=false, which is not contradicted.

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 dense but well-structured, with the core action and update semantics front-loaded in the first sentence and paragraph, and filters covered in a focused second paragraph. It has almost no filler, though a few details are repeated from the schema descriptions, preventing a 5.

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 tool with 9 parameters and nested objects, the description is highly complete: it covers replace-vs-merge behavior, constraints, and failure cases, and the schema fully documents every parameter. Since there is no output schema, a brief note on the return value would improve completeness, but correct invocation is well supported.

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. The description adds cross-parameter meaning that individual schema entries do not fully convey: partial-update vs. replacement, pause/resume semantics, and the invalid filter combination. This moves it above baseline, though the schema already documents most field-level behavior.

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 opens with 'Update an existing alert,' a concrete verb and resource. It then distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explaining partial-update semantics, entity replacement, pause/resume via is_active, and the immutability of alert kind, leaving no ambiguity about the operation.

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 gives explicit alternatives in key cases: use is_active to pause/resume without deleting, and create a new alert to change kind. It also references particle_alert_create.filters for consistency. It does not explicitly contrast against particle_alert_delete or particle_alert_get, but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose this tool.

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