create_alert_policy

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 only states that it creates a policy and returns a vague 'Result'. It does not disclose permissions required, idempotency, failure behavior, or any side effects beyond the creation itself.

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 structured with Args and Returns sections, making it easy to scan. It lists all 8 parameters without excessive prose. It earns a 4 because it is appropriately sized for the complexity, though it could be slightly tighter.

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 description covers all parameters and states the creation action, but it lacks details about the return value format, potential errors, prerequisites, or how the created policy manifests. Given there is no output schema, some of this information would be helpful for a complete picture.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides an Args section that defines every parameter, including defaults and example values for metric_type and comparison. This adds meaningful context beyond the parameter names, though some descriptions are terse (e.g., filter_str).

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 'Create a new alert policy in a GCP project' with a specific verb and resource. This is unambiguous and distinguishes the tool from sibling monitoring tools that list alerts or metrics, though no sibling creates alert policies.

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?

Usage is implied by the action 'Create a new alert policy' – the tool is for creating policies when needed. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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