update_alert

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool pre-checks edit access and refuses if can_write is false, and requires docsConsulted=true. However, it does not describe what the update does (e.g., merge vs replace fields), whether it errors on non-existent alerts, or what the return value looks like. It adds some value but leaves significant behavior unspecified.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by key preconditions. Every clause earns its place, and the documentation-first policy is stated clearly.

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?

This is a complex tool with 15 parameters and no output schema. The description covers purpose and preconditions but does not explain update semantics (partial vs full replacement), success indicators, error handling beyond access refusal, or what happens to unspecified fields. Given the complexity, an agent would need more guidance to call it correctly without guessing.

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 every parameter having a description. The description reinforces the docsConsulted requirement but adds no new meaning beyond the schema's 'Must be true.' The behavioral notes about access control do not pertain to parameters. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Update an existing alert.' This clearly distinguishes it from create_alert (since it says 'existing') and get_alert (since it says 'update'). It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 through the verb 'update' and 'existing alert', but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus create_alert or other siblings. The documentation-first directive is a how-to guideline, not a tool-selection rule. Preconditions (edit access check, docsConsulted) are behavioral constraints, not usage context.

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