Update Alert

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond listing updatable fields. It does not contradict annotations, but it does not enrich the agent's understanding of side effects (e.g., whether updates trigger notifications).

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 a single sentence of 14 words, front-loading the action and objects. No extraneous information. Highly efficient.

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?

The tool has a complex nested schema (schedule, recipients) and an output schema (context indicates presence). The description is minimal, but the schema fully covers parameters and return values. It adequately informs the agent about the tool's scope, though it could mention that all required fields (alert_id, name, query, schedule, recipients) must be provided.

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 each parameter is already described in the input schema. The tool description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, merely echoing field names (query, schedule, etc.). Baseline 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 'Update an alert's query, schedule, recipients, name, or enabled state' clearly states the verb (update) and the specific resources (alert fields). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'enable-alert' (which likely only toggles enabled state) and 'get-alert' (read-only).

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 lists what fields can be updated but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives like 'enable-alert' or 'get-alert'. It lacks guidance on context or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer from the field list.

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