configure_alerts

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries additional burden. It explicitly discloses that changes take effect immediately, that save=true persists to config.toml, and that omitted fields are left unchanged. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining the runtime vs persistent behavior, which is valuable context for an AI agent.

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 sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, immediate effect, save behavior, and partial updates. Front-loaded with the main action. No fluff, perfectly sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

With 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: runtime vs persisted changes, immediate effect, and partial update behavior. It lacks explicit mention of return values or configuration read alternatives, but these are not critical given the schema richness. Overall, sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 has 100% parameter description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating 'Omit any field to leave it unchanged', which applies to all parameters and clarifies partial update semantics. It also reinforces the save parameter's behavior, aligning with its schema description. This exceeds the baseline.

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 uses the specific verb 'Update' with the resource 'alert/notification settings', clearly indicating the tool's function. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like test_notification (which tests notifications) and get_hooks_config (which reads configuration). No ambiguity.

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?

It provides clear context for usage: changes take effect immediately, save=true persists to config, and omitting fields leaves them unchanged. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, the guidance is sufficient for basic operation and implies that this is the go-to tool for runtime configuration updates.

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