update-alert

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'update specific fields' without revealing whether it's a partial patch, what happens to unspecified fields, error handling, authorization needs, or idempotency. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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?

A single, concise sentence that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose.

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 tool has three parameters, one nested object, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not mention wait_for_commit, the shape of the response, or side effects of the update. This leaves the agent with incomplete information for 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?

The schema already documents alert_id and updates with clear descriptions. The description adds 'specific fields' to reinforce partial updates but doesn't explain wait_for_commit, which is undocumented. With 67% schema coverage, the description adds minor value beyond the schema.

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 action (update), the target (alert), and the scope (specific fields by ID). It distinguishes itself from create-alert and bulk-update-alerts by focusing on a single alert targeted by ID.

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 implies usage (to update fields of one alert) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like bulk-update-alerts. It lacks exclusions or context about its comparative advantage.

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