Configure Alert Threshold

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds context: thresholds 'run server-side automatically' and actions include 'pause_agent'. No contradictions with annotations. The description enhances transparency without repeating annotation information.

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?

Three concise sentences with no redundancy. Front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by actions and usage guidance. Every sentence contributes unique value.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no nested objects, no output schema) and 100% schema coverage, the description covers key aspects: purpose, scope, actions, and exclusion. It lacks details about post-setup behavior (e.g., confirmation), but this is acceptable without output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description does not add significant meaning beyond parameter descriptions. It mentions units implicitly (e.g., 'cost in cents') but those are already in the schema. The description adds value only in the context of usage, not parameter semantics.

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 uses specific verbs ('Set up') and resources ('alert thresholds'), clearly distinguishing between agent-specific and org-wide configurations. It explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool 'get_alerts' by stating what not to use this tool for, which aligns with the sibling list.

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 states when to use ('real-time cost governance and operational safety') and when not to use ('Do NOT use for viewing current alerts'), with an explicit reference to the correct sibling. However, it does not cover all possible alternative tools (e.g., 'set_budget') or provide comprehensive when-not conditions.

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