add_alert_rule

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses pickup latency ('within a few seconds — no restart needed') and the critical temporal constraint that rules only match future messages. It still leaves permissions/auth requirements and behavior on duplicate names unstated, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Front-loads purpose and the two highest-value behavioral facts (instant pickup, forward-only matching) before the structured Args list. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers behavior, timing, alternatives, and every parameter. It does not state what the call returns (e.g., a rule id) or any auth prerequisite, which keeps it just under 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 0%, yet the Args section documents all 8 parameters with meaningful semantics: match_type options, case-sensitivity default, chat-scoping behavior, exclude-before-include ordering, and include_outgoing default. This fully compensates for the empty 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create an alert rule') that is immediately distinguishable from siblings like list_alert_rules, delete_alert_rule, and set_alert_rule_enabled. The follow-on behavioral sentence clarifies it further, leaving no ambiguity about the operation.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to search_messages for backwards lookups, which is the key alternative-use case, and frames the rule's forward-only scope. However, it omits the sibling preview_rule, which an agent would plausibly want before committing a pattern, so guidance is clear but not comprehensive.

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