update_alert_channel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a mutation operation ('Update') but does not disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, idempotency, partial vs full update behavior, or side effects. The schema hints at full replacement for name, but the description does not mention this.

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 extremely concise with only two sentences, no redundant information, and front-loaded purpose. Every word earns its place.

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?

Despite the complexity of the input schema (many config types), the description is minimal. It does not explain return values (output schema covers that) or update behavior (e.g., partial vs full replacement). The reference to create_alert_channel helps but is not explicit. Adequate but could be more complete given the tool's intricacy.

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?

The description lists updatable fields (name, type, config) which adds value beyond the schema, since top-level parameter descriptions are missing (schema coverage 0%). It also points to create_alert_channel for type-specific config details. However, it does not elaborate on the channel_id parameter or the update semantics of each field.

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 specifies the verb and resource. It lists updatable fields (name, type, config) and distinguishes from create/delete tools. However, it could be more explicit about the update operation vs create.

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 implies when to use (to modify an existing channel) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use, prerequisites, or alternatives. It references create_alert_channel for type info, which is helpful but not a full guideline.

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