update_alert_channel

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only lists updatable fields without disclosing side effects, partial vs full update semantics, required permissions, or potential destructive behavior (e.g., changing type might break existing setups). The schema provides some details (e.g., name is full replacement), but the tool description itself lacks behavioral context.

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 with two sentences, front-loading the purpose and listing updatable fields. Every sentence adds value with no fluff.

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?

The tool has a complex input schema with nested objects and an output schema. The description references create_alert_channel for config types, which is helpful, but it does not clarify update semantics (partial vs full), failure conditions, or the role of the channel_id. Given the complexity and lack of annotations, more context would be beneficial.

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%, but the schema itself contains rich descriptions for each parameter (e.g., name description, config oneOf). The tool description adds a high-level list of updatable fields (name, type, config) and references create_alert_channel for types, which provides some additional context. However, it does not explain the channel_id parameter or the required structure of body. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Update an existing alert channel', which is a specific verb+resource pair. It also lists updatable fields and references a sibling tool for supported types, distinguishing it from create_alert_channel and other related tools.

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 mentions 'See create_alert_channel for supported types', guiding the user when to use the create tool, but does not explicitly state when to use this update tool versus get_alert_channel, delete_alert_channel, or other alternatives. No when-not or failure conditions are provided.

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