gorelo_create_alert

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered and the description only adds the external-source framing. It says nothing about whether duplicate alerts are deduplicated, whether the alert can be resolved later, or what the caller gets back on success.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the action and scope with no filler. It is efficient, though it is arguably too thin given the nested body it fronts.

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 write tool with a nested request body and no output schema, the description covers the what but not the outcome — no indication of what ID or object is returned, whether severity defaults apply, or whether ClientId must already exist. Annotations absorb some of the burden, leaving it adequate but with real gaps.

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 100% and the nested body fields (Name, ClientId, Resource, Severity enum, Description) are documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level guidance of its own, and notably does not compensate for the garbled Resource description ('g. host name, service).').

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 ('Raises') and resource ('a new alert') scoped to a client in Gorelo, which cleanly separates it from the sibling list_alerts reader. It does not name the sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'such as an alert from an outside monitoring tool' implies the intended ingestion scenario, giving the agent a usable context cue. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of how this relates to gorelo_list_alerts, and no note about creating tickets instead.

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