update_drp_alert_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only labels the operation as a 'mutation' and shows an example payload, but it does not disclose valid state values, whether the comment field is optional, authorization needs, or response behavior.

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 short but contains redundancy: 'mutation updateDrpAlertState' restates the tool name and 'Variables: input' duplicates schema information. The example variables are the only content that adds value, and the structure is a run-on set of fragments rather than clean front-loaded sentences.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain more—such as valid state transitions, required inner fields, and side effects. The example provides a starting point but is insufficient for an agent to safely and correctly invoke this tool in all cases.

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's description of 'input' is merely the opaque GraphQL type name 'UpdateDrpAlertStateInput!', so the example variables add genuine meaning by revealing the nested shape (comment, drpAlert, state). This gives an agent the concrete structure of the required input, though field semantics beyond the example values are not elaborated.

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 restates the tool name as 'mutation updateDrpAlertState' without an explicit statement of what the tool does. The example variables showing 'state': 'IN_PROGRESS' and 'drpAlert': '<ID HERE>' implicitly reveal that this updates a DRP alert's state, but the lack of a direct purpose sentence keeps this at a vague level.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like bulk_update_drp_alert_state and assign_drp_alert suggest related operations, but the description offers no differentiation, exclusions, or usage context.

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