fa_update_alert

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

Beyond annotations (idempotentHint, readOnlyHint), the description reveals critical behavior: without confirm, it's a dry-run with no network call; with confirm, it applies changes. This fully discloses the tool's operational behavior.

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: first states purpose, second explains critical confirm behavior. No wasted words, front-loaded with key 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?

Given 16 parameters and no output schema, the description covers core behavior and dry-run feature. It lacks explicit mention of return format, error handling, or constraints like alert limits, but annotations compensate partially. Minor gap for high 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?

All 16 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so description adds no extra semantics. The confirm behavior is partly in schema, but description reiterates it without new parameter-specific details.

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 verb 'update' and the resource 'flight alert', and it distinguishes from sibling tools like fa_create_alert by specifying 'replaces its configuration'. The purpose is 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 explains the confirm parameter's effect (dry-run vs actual update) and implies usage for existing alerts. However, it does not explicitly compare to fa_create_alert or fa_delete_alert or provide when-to-use scenarios against alternatives.

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