UpdateAlertRule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that this updates alert rules without mentioning whether this is a destructive operation, what permissions are required, how errors are handled, or what happens to existing configurations. For a mutation tool with complex parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 first sentence is appropriately concise, but the second sentence about 'MCP Resource' adds technical clutter without enhancing understanding for tool selection. While brief, the structure could be improved by front-loading more actionable information rather than implementation details.

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 mutation tool with 6 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'updating' entails (partial vs. full updates), success/failure conditions, or relationship to other alert management tools, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and context.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond the schema, which meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete but doesn't provide extra value.

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 states the verb ('更新' meaning 'update') and resource ('自定义监控告警规则' meaning 'custom monitoring alert rule'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'CreateAlertRule' or other alert-related tools, which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'CreateAlertRule' or 'DeleteAlertRule'. The mention of 'MCP Resource' is a technical implementation note rather than usage guidance, leaving the agent with no context about appropriate use cases or prerequisites.

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