madeonsol_coordination_alerts_update

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

Annotations already indicate non-readonly and non-destructive behavior. The description adds minimal behavioral insight beyond mentioning the is_active toggle. It does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or constraints like whether updates are atomic or partial.

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, making it concise. However, it is too brief to be informative, lacking structure or organization that would help an agent quickly parse key points.

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 the tool's complexity (11 parameters, constraints like min/max, enums) and no output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. It fails to cover parameter semantics, update behavior for partial fields, validation rules, or any return value, making it difficult for an AI agent to use correctly.

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 only 9% (only the 'id' field has a description). The description does not explain the meaning or usage of the 10 other parameters, such as min_kols, window_minutes, or delivery_mode, leaving the AI agent with little guidance on how to use them correctly.

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?

Description clearly states it updates a coordination alert rule and highlights the is_active toggle. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create or delete, but the verb 'update' and context of siblings imply it modifies existing rules.

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?

Usage context is implied by the action (update) and the sibling set (create, delete, list, get). The description offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as preferring create for new rules or delete for removal.

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