alert_template_edit

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

Beyond the annotations (destructive, idempotent), the payload description discloses that LibreNMS replaces the entire template on edit, requiring all fields to be resent, and warns that omitting template_id causes creation instead of editing. These are valuable behavioral traits not evident from annotations alone.

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 main description is a single, focused sentence with zero filler. The structured bullet list in the payload description provides detailed semantics without redundant prose, keeping the overall definition clean and front-loaded.

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?

Although the main description is very short, the detailed payload description covers the crucial behavioral caveats, making the overall definition relatively complete for a mutation tool. The presence of an output schema and annotations further reduces the need for return-value or safety explanations.

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%; the payload property thoroughly explains all sub-fields (template_id, name, template, title, title_rec, alert_rules) and their requirements. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Edit an existing alert template in LibreNMS' uses a specific verb (Edit) and resource (alert template), and the word 'existing' clearly distinguishes from creation tools like alert_template_create. It fully conveys the tool's core function.

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 main description offers no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives, but the payload description provides critical usage constraints: template_id is required to edit, otherwise it creates a new template, and the whole template is replaced so all fields must be resent. This is helpful but not a direct comparison to alternatives.

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