update_dependency_alert_sensitivity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention potential side effects, permissions required, whether the change is reversible, or any rate limits. The description is limited to the basic update action without additional 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 extremely concise: one opening sentence stating the purpose, followed by a bullet-free enumeration of levels. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded. No wasted words.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, output schema present), the description is moderately complete. It explains the alert sensitivity parameter well but omits context for subscription_id. The missing parameter explanation reduces completeness.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. For 'alert_sensitivity', the description explains the meaning of each level, adding value. However, 'subscription_id' is not explained at all, leaving a gap. The description provides partial but incomplete parameter semantics.

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 'Change how loudly a tracked dependency alerts you,' which specifies the verb (change) and resource (dependency alert sensitivity). It also lists the four levels (AWARENESS, INCIDENTS_ONLY, MAJOR_ONLY, ALL), making the purpose specific and distinct from sibling tools like update_monitor or update_alert_channel.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only explains what the tool does and the available levels, but lacks exclusions or context for choosing this over other alert-related tools among the many siblings.

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