Update 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 clearly states that certain fields are always patched and explains the update semantics for actions (partial vs full replacement). It also implicitly warns that actions_mode only applies when actions is sent. While it doesn't specify response format or error handling, it covers the key behavioral nuances well.

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 concise and well-structured, using line breaks to separate the main function from the details of actions_mode. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides necessary elaboration without redundancy. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's behavior.

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 the complexity (18 parameters, update semantics, and no output schema), the description is quite complete. It explains the patching behavior, actions modes, and necessary prerequisites. However, it doesn't explicitly state what the tool returns (e.g., success indicator), though this might be inferred. It also could mention potential errors (e.g., alert not found), but overall it's comprehensive for an update operation.

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 high (89%), so the description doesn't need to re-explain each parameter. It adds value by explaining the actions_mode parameter in detail, which the schema only briefly covers as 'patch|override'. The description's note that actions_mode only applies when actions is sent is additional semantic clarity not in the schema, earning a baseline 3 with modest enhancement.

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 tool updates an existing Splunk alert, specifying it as a scheduled saved search with trigger conditions and actions. It distinguishes it from similar operations like create_alert and update_saved_search, making the purpose 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 when to use the tool (to update an alert) and provides critical operational guidance: omitting fields leaves them unchanged, and it explicitly instructs to call list_alert_actions first for custom actions. It also details the two modes (patch vs override) and when to choose each, which is essential for correct usage.

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