Create Alert

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

Annotations already declare destructive/openWorld, so the bar is lower, and the description usefully adds side-effect detail: notifications go by email to members who keep incident emails on and are posted to channels. It also discloses the 400 `bad_rule` failure mode. It does not explain why a create operation is flagged destructive, nor return values or idempotency.

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 with no filler, and the operational caveats come first. Density is good, though the opening sentence reads as a metric quirk rather than a front-loaded statement of what the tool does.

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 mutating creation tool with a nested request body and no output schema, the description should say what is returned (e.g., an alert identifier) and how it relates to updateAlert/deleteAlert. The notification side effects are covered, but selection guidance, return handling, and the destructive flag remain unexplained.

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?

Top-level schema description coverage is low (20%), but the nested requestBody properties carry rich schema descriptions, so the schema does most of the work. The description adds genuine meaning for `email` (who actually receives mail) and for metric scoping (p95/errors tied to the routed service), but says nothing about workspaceSlug, appSlug, env, or region.

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 never uses an explicit creation verb; it describes the resulting rule ('A rule that fires emails members...') rather than the act of creating it. The metric caveat about p95/errors routing to the app's address is scope information, not a statement of purpose. An agent must infer 'creates an alert rule' from the name and title alone.

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?

No when-to-use guidance distinguishing this from updateAlert, listAlerts, or createChannel, and no prerequisites such as required permissions or a workspace/app context. The only conditional guidance is the metric caveat ('p95 and errors exist only for the service the app's address routes to'), which constrains valid input rather than selection.

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