alert_update

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

Goes meaningfully beyond annotations: it discloses the re-arm guard ('refuses to re-arm a paused alert unless explicitly allowed'), which explains the allow_temporary_activation parameter, and the reporting behavior ('reports every unverified field'), which hints at partial-verification outcomes. It does not discuss atomicity or what happens to fields omitted from the patch, so it stops short of 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the guard condition; every clause carries information. 'Through the native alert model' is the one soft phrase that adds little for an agent.

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 non-idempotent mutation with a nested patch object, 4 required params, 40% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the patch surface and the re-arm guard but omits whether updates are atomic, how omitted fields are treated, and what 'unverified field' reporting actually returns.

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 only 40%, with descriptions on target_id and expected_layout_id but nothing on alert_id, patch.active, or allow_temporary_activation. The description does map most of the patch sub-fields and implicitly explains the re-arm flag, but leaves `active` and `message_format` semantics and the alert_id format 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?

States a concrete verb+resource (update an alert) and enumerates the mutable fields (name, message, webhook, notifications), which lets an agent tell it apart from alert_pause/alert_resume/alert_delete. It does not explicitly say 'use alert_update for field edits, not alert_pause for active state,' so sibling differentiation is only implied.

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?

Usage is implied: this is the field-editing path, while activation state has dedicated siblings. However there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, and the presence of `active` inside `patch` alongside the dedicated alert_pause/alert_resume tools leaves a real ambiguity the description never resolves.

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