Create Alert

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive action. The description adds the plan requirement and the basic behavior (runs query, notifies), but does not provide deeper behavioral details such as rate limits, idempotency guarantees, or consequences of creating an alert. With annotations present, the description adds some value but is not extensive.

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 contains two sentences that are front-loaded and to the point. No extraneous information. Every word contributes to the purpose and prerequisite.

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 create tool with a rich schema (7 parameters, nested objects, output schema), the description covers the core purpose and prerequisite. The output schema documents return values, so the description does not need to elaborate. Minor omission: it does not mention that workspace_id defaults to the bound workspace, but that is in the schema.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description only restates that the alert 'runs a GNQL query', which is already in the schema. It adds no additional semantic meaning or examples beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Create', the resource 'scheduled alert', and what it does ('runs a GNQL query and notifies recipients'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list-alerts, update-alert, etc., which perform different actions on alerts.

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 mentions a prerequisite ('Requires a plan entitled to alerts'), which provides usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like update-alert or delete-alert, though the tool name and purpose imply its usage for creation only.

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