Create/Update Alarm

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description aligns with these by stating create/update behavior, but adds no further behavioral context about side effects, permissions, or edge cases. It meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no superfluous information. Every phrase earns its place.

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 nested repetition object and 5 parameters, but the schema fully documents each field, including the id behavior (omit to create new). The description covers the core purpose and format, and no output schema is needed. It is complete enough for a simple create/update tool, though it could theoretically mention id-based updates more explicitly (but schema already does).

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 100%, with each parameter already documented. The description mentions 'time in HH:MM format' and 'which days to repeat,' which are redundant with the schema. It adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline 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 'Create a new alarm or update an existing one,' specifying the verb (create/update) and resource (alarm), distinguishing it from list_alarms and delete_alarm. It also adds useful detail about time format and optional repeat days.

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 usage (when you want to create or update an alarm) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like list_alarms or delete_alarm. The sibling context makes the intent clear, but no direct exclusion or prerequisite guidance is provided.

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