alert_create

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=false, while the description advertises 'Durable idempotency'; that is a direct behavioral conflict. Valuable extra context about independent verification and the paused default exists, but the contradiction forces a 1.

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 dense sentences front-load the purpose and capabilities with little waste. The second sentence is slightly overloaded but remains structured and informative.

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 13-parameter nested create tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description omits too many operational details about notifications, expiration, webhook behavior, and condition subfields. It covers purpose and some condition semantics but not enough to confidently invoke across all parameters.

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 only 15% across 13 parameters, so the description must compensate. It maps the condition families and mentions idempotency and verification, but leaves active, symbol, message, resolution, webhook_url, notifications, message_format, expiration_days, and most condition subfields unexplained.

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?

Starts with a specific verb and resource ('Create a native alert directly') and clarifies it does not require a template. It also names supported condition families (price, strategy, indicator), but does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like alert_create_bulk or alert_prepare.

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 phrase 'without requiring a template' implies when to use this tool rather than a template-based path, but no alternative sibling is named. There is no explicit when-not guidance or mention of prerequisites such as target_id and expected_layout_id.

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