start_middleware_alert_rule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. The verb 'start' implies activation, but the description does not disclose whether the action is idempotent, what happens if the rule is already started, or any side effects. This minimal disclosure is insufficient for a tool that modifies state.

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 sentence with no extraneous information, making it concise. However, it lacks substance and could be expanded to include key details while remaining brief. The front-loading is acceptable but the sentence does not earn its place due to missing information.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description should compensate with richer context. It fails to mention that the alert rule must already exist, what happens on success, or error conditions. The description is too sparse for a tool that performs a state-changing operation.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not elaborate on the parameters. While the parameter names ('middleware_instance_name', 'alert_rule_name') are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no additional meaning or constraints, leaving the agent to infer semantics solely from the parameter names.

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 'Start an alert rule for a middleware instance' clearly identifies the action (start) and the resource (alert rule for middleware instance). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_middleware_alert_rule' or 'stop_middleware_alert_rule', so the purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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, such as creating or stopping alert rules. There are no prerequisites mentioned (e.g., the alert rule must exist), nor any conditions under which this tool should or should not be used.

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