tg_rules

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It goes beyond the basic 'Update' verb by explaining that the operation merges on top of existing values and enumerating valid keys and types. This provides critical behavioral context, though it doesn't cover error handling or side effects beyond the merge.

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 two sentences: the first defines purpose, the second lists keys and gives a usage tip. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, follows with a clean key list, and ends with a practical instruction. 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 simple single-parameter patch structure and presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the input semantics, merge behavior, and prerequisite workflow (tg_status). The output schema handles return value details, so no further description is needed.

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% because the only parameter 'patch' is a generic object with additionalProperties. The description fully compensates by listing all valid keys (enabled, alert_on_private, etc.) and their types, including the quiet_hours format. This gives the agent everything needed to construct a valid patch.

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 starts with 'Update alert rules,' a specific verb+resource construction that clearly states the tool's function. This distinguishes it from siblings like tg_alert (which likely triggers alerts) and tg_status (which reads status). The purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Call tg_status first to see current values; this merges on top of them.' This tells the agent a prerequisite step and explains the merge behavior. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not scenarios, but the context is clear enough for this tool.

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