createAlert

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool creates an alert, implying a write operation, but fails to mention authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects, or what happens on failure beyond HTTP error codes. The inclusion of HTTP response examples (201, 401, 422) adds some value, but overall, the description is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose but includes verbose HTTP response details that may not be essential for tool selection. While the response examples provide context, they add bulk without directly aiding in understanding when or how to use the tool. The structure could be more focused on usage rather than API response formatting.

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 (a mutation with nested parameters, no annotations, and an output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter meanings, behavioral constraints, and differentiation from siblings. Although an output schema exists, the description does not adequately cover the input semantics or usage context, making it insufficient for effective agent decision-making.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description does not compensate by explaining the 'data' parameter or its nested structure (e.g., attributes like 'summary', 'source', 'labels'), leaving the agent with no semantic understanding of required inputs. This is inadequate for a tool with one complex, required parameter.

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 states 'Creates a new alert from provided data', which clearly indicates the verb ('creates') and resource ('alert'), establishing the basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what constitutes an 'alert' in this context and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'createIncident' or 'attachAlert', leaving ambiguity about when to use this versus other creation tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as required permissions or dependencies, nor does it compare to sibling tools like 'createIncident' or 'listAlerts'. This absence of contextual usage information leaves the agent without clear direction for tool selection.

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