Update price alert

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (mutation, non-idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds a genuinely non-obvious consequence: the alert is replaced and receives a new id, returned alongside previousId. That is exactly the kind of behavior an agent could not infer from the schema or annotations, and it is consistent with idempotentHint=false.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no filler, and the primary action is front-loaded ahead of the replacement caveat. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 output schema, the description closes the most important gap by explaining the return values (new id plus previousId) and the replace semantics. Combined with the annotations and the 80%-covered schema, an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters including enums and defaults. The description names the three mutable fields (price, direction, frequency) but adds no format, constraint, or default detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Changes an alert's price, direction or frequency'), which an agent can distinguish from create_alert/delete_alert/get_alert. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as create_alert or delete_alert. The closest thing to usage context ('Thndr has no in-place edit') is really a behavioral trait, not selection guidance.

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