update_nrql_condition

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update', which is a mutation, but it does not describe partial-update semantics, validation behavior, side effects, or what happens to unmentioned settings. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the verb and resource, which is exactly what an agent needs for quick selection.

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 parameter schema is rich and fully describes inputs, but the tool lacks annotations and an output schema, and the description provides no behavioral or usage context beyond the basic update intent. For a 9-parameter mutation tool, a bit more context about update semantics would make it complete.

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%, with all 9 parameters documented. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already carries the semantic weight.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('existing NRQL alert condition'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It is also easily distinguished from sibling tools like create_nrql_condition and delete_nrql_condition.

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 'existing NRQL alert condition' provides clear context: use this tool when modifying an already-created condition, not for creating or deleting one. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, so it stops short of full guidance.

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