fa_set_alerts_endpoint

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

Discloses that without confirm:true it returns a preview and makes no network call, and with confirm:true it applies the change. This goes beyond annotations (idempotent, openWorld) by explaining the dry-run behavior and network impact. No contradiction 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, no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose, then key detail about confirm behavior. Efficient and easy to parse.

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?

The description covers the core behavior and parameter effects. However, there is no output schema and the description does not specify what the preview return looks like or error conditions. For a simple set endpoint operation, this is adequate but could be more 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 coverage is 100% (all parameters described). The description adds value for the confirm parameter by explaining its effect on preview vs apply. For url and format, the description largely mirrors the schema, so the added value is moderate.

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?

Clearly states the tool sets the webhook endpoint for alert notifications. The verb 'Set' and resource 'delivery endpoint' are specific. Among siblings, there is a getter (fa_get_alerts_endpoint) and other alert manipulation tools, so the purpose is distinct.

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 explains the two modes: dry-run preview (without confirm:true) and actual application (with confirm:true). This guides the agent on when to use each. Could be improved by explicitly stating when to choose this tool over alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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