Change the name or incident preference of an existing New Relic alert policy by specifying its ID. Keep alert configurations aligned with current operational requirements.
Update an existing alert policy (name and/or incident preference)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | New name for the policy (optional) | |
| policy_id | Yes | ID of the alert policy to update | |
| incident_preference | No | New incident preference (optional) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It signals mutation and scopes changes to name/incident preference, but it does not state whether updates are partial or full replacements, what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, or what the response contains.
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 sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the action and resource and a concise parenthetical field list. Every word earns its place.
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 tool is simple with only three parameters and full schema coverage, so the description plus schema is enough for a basic correct invocation. However, the lack of annotations and output schema leaves operational gaps such as partial-update behavior and preconditions, which an agent might need to know.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond naming the mutable fields; policy_id is not mentioned in prose but is fully documented in the schema.
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 (update) and resource (alert policy), and clarifies the mutable fields (name and/or incident preference). It is easily distinguished from create_alert_policy, delete_alert_policy, and list_alert_policies, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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 intended use is implied: modifying an existing alert policy rather than creating or deleting one. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over update_nrql_condition or any other update-related sibling, and no exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.