trmnl_update_fleet_alerts

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, open-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value on top: omitted keys retain current values, and a null email redirects the digest to the account owner, which an agent could not infer from annotations. The final 'changes remote state / authorized scope' sentence is boilerplate but not wrong.

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 core semantics (digest behavior, partial update, null email) are front-loaded and compact. The trailing 'Changes remote state or starts work' sentence is generic filler that adds no information beyond the annotations.

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 nested-body mutation with no output schema and thin schema descriptions, the description covers the email semantics well but leaves the enable flag, the threshold options, and the response behavior undocumented. An agent could call it, but would be guessing on two of the three body fields.

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 coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the email field's null-vs-string behavior and the partial-update convention, but it says nothing about overdue_alert_enabled and never mentions that the threshold is restricted to 30/60/240 minutes, leaving the enum undocumented outside the schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: change the overdue check-in alert for a fleet installation, with the underlying PATCH endpoint spelled out. It is clearly distinct from the fleet-settings and fleet-master siblings, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

'Keys left out keep their value' implicitly tells the agent this is a partial update rather than a replace, which is useful invocation guidance. But there is no statement of when to use this versus trmnl_update_fleet_settings or other fleet tools, and no prerequisites beyond the generic authorization boilerplate.

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