IvedaAI: Alert

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

The description discloses the generic response envelope (status, truncated/timedOut flags) and marks required parameters with asterisks. Annotations already indicate destructive operations, so the description adds useful context without needing to repeat safety warnings. It does not discuss authentication or rate limits, but that is not required given the annotations.

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 well-structured with a clear header, response note, and a line per endpoint. It is dense but appropriately concise for a multi-operation tool. Minor typos ('Chage', 'pars') slightly detract, and the content is unavoidably long due to the number of endpoints.

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 complex tool with nine operations and no output schema, the description covers every endpoint's purpose and parameters. It also references ivedaai_get_schema for complex body types, and the generic response note addresses return-value concerns. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke operations correctly.

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 description provides exhaustive parameter details for every operation, including types, enums, required markers, and path/query/body placement. The input schema only contains generic fields (operation, body, path, query), so the description carries the full parameter documentation burden and does so 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 clearly identifies this as an alert operations tool, enumerating nine specific endpoints with descriptive titles (Find alerts, Change alert state, Delete alert by id, Get alert statistics, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling alert-related tools like ivedaai_alert_rule and ivedaai_alert_trigger.

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 endpoint names and parameter lists but never explicitly states when to use this tool versus sibling alternatives, nor does it provide guidance on choosing between the different alert endpoints. There is no 'use X for this, Y for that' context.

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