Replay activity alert

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a non-idempotent side-effecting action that touches external state. The description adds the visible consequence (an alert appears on overlays), but does not disclose rate limits, permission needs, or whether the replayed alert counts against a live trigger consumer, so it only modestly extends the annotations.

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 sentence with zero filler; the action and its effect are front-loaded, and the trailing example is short and earns its place by clarifying intent.

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?

For a two-parameter, no-output-schema action tool whose safety profile is fully covered by annotations, the description supplies everything needed to invoke it correctly. It could be slightly richer by saying what happens if the activity id does not exist, but nothing essential is missing.

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 100%: both channel and activityId carry their own 24-char hex format notes and the channel default is documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the schema baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb (replay) and resource (an activity's alert) and names the visible effect (on the channel's overlays), which separates it from reads like activities_get and mutations like activities_update. It stops short of naming an adjacent sibling such as overlays_action, so the differentiation is good but not explicit.

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?

"e.g. to re-show a follow or tip alert on stream" gives one concrete motivating scenario, which is enough to imply when the tool is useful. There is no guidance on when NOT to use it (e.g. re-sending is unnecessary if the overlay already fired) and no mention of alternatives.

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