fa_set_alerts_endpoint

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description enriches this by detailing the dry-run vs. apply behavior, absence of network call without confirm, and auth restriction (401 on free tier). No contradictions with annotations.

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 sentences: the first front-loads the core action, the second adds critical behavioral details. No superfluous words. Perfectly structured.

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?

Given no output schema, the description still mentions return behavior (dry-run preview). Auth requirement is covered. With idempotentHint and openWorldHint from annotations, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool 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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the url parameter's role (AeroAPI POSTs to it) and the confirm parameter's necessity for actual change. The format parameter's options are covered by the schema, but description adds context on delivery payload format. Marginal but useful enhancement.

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 tool sets the webhook endpoint for alert notifications, distinguishing it from siblings like fa_get_alerts_endpoint (retrieves) and fa_create_alert (creates alerts). The verb 'set' and resource 'delivery endpoint' are specific and unambiguous.

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 dry-run behavior without confirm:true (returns preview, no network call) and the requirement of confirm:true to apply the change. It also notes the tier requirement (Standard/Premium, free Personal returns 401). This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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