IvedaAI: AlertTrigger

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

The description includes a useful response format note (status, truncated/timedOut) but fails to disclose the side effects of the POST 'Test' operation—whether it actually triggers alerts or is a dry-run. It also omits permission requirements and error behavior. Annotations are neutral (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description carries the burden but does not address these.

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 compact and structured as a list of endpoints with parameters. The opening line 'IvedaAI API — AlertTrigger operations' is somewhat redundant with the title but overall every line provides useful information, with no fluff.

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?

The description covers the two operations and some parameter details, but lacks per-operation return values (no output schema), detailed behavior for POST, and any error/edge-case handling. For an API tool with two endpoints and no output schema, the description is adequate but not fully complete—more details on what each endpoint returns would be needed.

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 input schema descriptions are generic (e.g., 'JSON request body'), but the tool description adds specific parameter meaning: the 'view' query enum values (All|Fr|Id|Lpr|Pc|Post|Vc) and the body shape { trigger?:AlertTrigger }. This goes beyond the schema and helps the agent construct valid requests.

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 explicitly lists two operations with clear verbs and resources: 'Get alert trigger metadata' and 'Test alert triggers'. This distinguishes the tool from siblings by specifying the alert-trigger resource and its operations.

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?

Usage is implied by the operation names—if you need alert trigger metadata or to test alert triggers, use this tool. However, no explicit guidance is given on when to choose this over related alert tools (e.g., ivedaai_alert, ivedaai_alert_rule), nor any exclusion conditions.

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