fa_update_alert

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds transparency by explaining that the tool replaces the entire configuration, requires confirm to execute (otherwise dry-run), and requires a paid tier. 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?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the main purpose and then adds crucial usage details (confirm, tier). Every sentence provides necessary information.

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?

With 16 parameters (all described in schema) and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral context (dry-run, auth). It does not describe the return value, but given the schema richness, it is largely 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 16 parameters. The description adds value by explaining the confirm parameter's role (dry-run vs. apply) and that the update replaces the configuration. This clarifies the semantics beyond the schema.

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 'Update an existing flight alert (replaces its configuration).' The verb 'update' and resource 'flight alert' are specific. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fa_create_alert and fa_delete_alert.

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 explains the dry-run behavior when confirm:true is absent and the actual update when present. It also mentions the required AeroAPI tier (Standard or Premium, not free Personal). It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the context is clear.

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