create-alert

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that a new alert is created, but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, return values, required permissions, or behavior of the wait_for_commit parameter. This is a significant gap for a create operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it borders on tautology, essentially restating the tool name, and lacks substantive content to earn a higher score. It is concise but under-specified.

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 alert object, wait_for_commit flag, no output schema, no annotations), this description is grossly inadequate. It provides no information about return values, error behavior, parameter interactions, or practical usage context, making it nearly useless for an agent considering invocation.

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 only 50%, and the description text adds no parameter-level detail beyond what's in the schema. The alert property's required fields are mentioned in the schema, but wait_for_commit is undocumented in both the schema and description. The description fails to compensate for the incomplete schema coverage.

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 the tool's action ('Create') and resource ('an alert') with product context ('in Concert Operate'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create-event and create-alert-insight, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., bulk-update-alerts, create-event). It lacks any contextual cues, prerequisites, or explicit exclusions that would help an agent select this tool appropriately.

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