update_alert_channel

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'Update' without explaining side effects, whether the update is partial or full replacement, or any requirements like authorization. The schema's nested descriptions (e.g., 'full replacement' for name) are not reflected in the main description.

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 a single sentence but lacks essential details. While concise in word count, it is under-specified and does not earn its place by providing valuable context beyond the tool name.

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 tool's complexity (nested object config, multiple channel types) and lack of annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the update mechanism, return value (though output schema exists), or behavior when certain fields are omitted.

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 input schema contains descriptions for nested parameters (e.g., name, config variants) and an enum for managedBy, providing some semantic coverage. However, the main description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not mention parameters or their purpose.

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 states 'Update an existing alert channel,' which conveys verb and resource but is generic. With many sibling tools like create_alert_channel, get_alert_channel, delete_alert_channel, and list_alert_channels, the description fails to differentiate by specifying what aspects are updatable, leading to ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_alert_channel for new channels, get_alert_channel for retrieval). There is no mention of prerequisites or context for updates.

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