alert_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'authenticated' (a useful hint about auth requirements), but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites existing alerts, deactivates after first fire, requires specific permissions, or what the response format is). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the purpose. No filler or redundancy; every word contributes to the core meaning.

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?

Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what a successful creation returns (e.g., alert ID), error possibilities, or how the alert interacts with the chart state. For a moderately complex tool, this is inadequate for an agent to fully understand the operation.

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 all parameters already have detailed descriptions (notably frequency and resolution). The description itself adds no extra parameter context, so it stays at the baseline 3. It does not need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 clearly states the action ('Create a price alert') and the target ('on the current chart'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like alert_create_bulk (bulk creation) and alert_list/delete (management). Even without explicit differentiation, the verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 implies single-alert creation by its name and contrasts with the obvious bulk sibling, but it never explicitly says when to use this tool over alternatives or provides exclusion conditions. The usage context is inferred rather than stated, so it earns a 3 (implied) rather than 2 (no guidance) because the sibling names make the distinction reasonably clear.

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