Update alert

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds only that fields are replaced, but does not clarify essential behavior: whether omitted optional fields (such as expires) are cleared or preserved, and whether triggers/notifiers on the alert survive the replacement.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, but the brevity shades into under-specification for a 4-parameter mutation tool rather than being economically complete.

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 mutating, non-idempotent tool with no output schema and zero schema description coverage, the description leaves too much unknown: partial-vs-full replacement semantics, parameter roles, and what an agent should expect after the call.

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 carries the full burden, yet it only gestures at "name/filters." It never explains what `id` refers to, that `ip` is a filter value, or what `expires` means (and its interaction with a replace-semantics operation).

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?

"Replace the name/filters on an existing alert" gives a specific verb and resource, and the name distinguishes it from shodan_alert_create/list/get/delete. It never explicitly contrasts with those siblings, but the mutation intent is 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this rather than recreate an alert or delete-and-create, no prerequisites (alert must already exist), and no mention that at least one notifier or trigger must be configured. The agent must infer all of this.

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