fa_create_alert

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

Annotations indicate a non-read-only, mutable operation. The description adds critical behavioral details: the dry-run preview when confirm is false, the actual creation when true, and the tier restriction. This goes beyond the schema and annotations, though it doesn't describe rate limits or error states, which would be nice.

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 two sentences long, with the main action stated first. Every word adds value: the verb, the resource, the confirm behavior, and the tier requirement. No fluff, perfectly front-loaded.

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 tool with 15 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core workflow and a critical authorization note. However, it does not describe the preview format or what the API returns on successful creation. It also lacks details on default behaviors (e.g., what happens if no filters are set). Adequate but could be more complete given the complexity.

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 100%, so the schema already describes all 15 parameters. The description adds value only for the confirm parameter by explaining the dry-run behavior. For other parameters, the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema descriptions. Hence a 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?

The description states the exact action: 'Create a flight alert on your AeroAPI account.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like fa_update_alert and fa_delete_alert by focusing on creation. Additionally, it explains the dry-run mode, making the tool's core function unmistakable.

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 explicitly explains the confirm parameter's role (dry-run vs. actual creation) and warns about the required AeroAPI tier. It provides clear context on when to use each mode. Though it doesn't mention alternatives (e.g., updating versus creating), the sibling list makes that implicit, so the guidance is strong but not perfect.

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