Alert Rule Add

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

Annotations already signal a mutating operation via readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered without description help. The description itself adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations provide—no mention of duplicate-rule handling, validation outcomes, or side effects. It is consistent with the annotations, so no contradiction.

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 zero filler. All necessary detail is delegated to the schema and annotations, which is the appropriate division of labor for such a simple tool.

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 one-parameter create tool with a comprehensive payload schema, an output schema, and annotations covering the mutating nature, the definition is nearly complete. The only real gap is the missing when-to-use guidance relative to alert_rule_edit and alert_rule_delete.

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%, and the payload schema is exceptionally detailed: it enumerates required vs optional fields, defaults, allowed severity values, and includes a JSON example. Per the baseline rule, the description need not compensate since the schema fully documents the 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 a specific verb ('Add'), a clear resource ('alert rule'), and a destination ('LibreNMS'). The create semantics are unambiguous against the sibling tools alert_rule_edit and alert_rule_delete, so an agent can select it correctly without inspecting the schema.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alert_rule_edit, alert_rule_delete, or alert_rules_list. There are no stated prerequisites, such as needing valid device IDs or a formatted builder JSON, and no exclusions. The agent must infer the intent from the tool name alone.

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