snowflake_create_alert

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation (creation) but does not disclose whether it is idempotent, what happens if an alert with the same name exists, whether specific permissions are required, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a create operation with multiple parameters.

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 a single concise sentence with every word adding value. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and it highlights the core components. There is no filler, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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 8 parameters (5 required), no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, a one-line summary is inadequate. The agent lacks details on how to formulate condition SQL and action SQL, what schedule syntax is expected, and how the database/schema context is used. The output schema exists, so return format is not a gap, but the input requirements for successful invocation are underspecified.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It names three parameters (schedule, condition_sql, action_sql) but provides no syntax, format, or examples. It entirely ignores alert_name, warehouse_name, and the optional comment/database/schema_name. The agent gets only a vague notion that these exist, with no guidance on how to construct them correctly.

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 a clear verb 'Create' and resource 'alert', and lists the key components (schedule, condition SQL, action SQL). This distinguishes it from other alert operations like resume/suspend/drop, and also from other resource creation tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other create tools (e.g., create_database) beyond the resource name, and it omits mention of alert_name and warehouse_name, which are also core to the tool.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a warehouse), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like list_alerts, describe_alert, or resume_alert. The agent is left to infer that this is for creating a new alert, but there is no explicit context or exclusion criteria.

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