grafana_criar_regra_alerta

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but only says 'parâmetros validados'. It does not disclose required permissions, whether the rule is activated immediately, side effects, or validation failure behavior—critical gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted explanation, though the leading '53.' is extraneous formatting noise.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations, a complex unspecified nested payload, and 0% schema description coverage. Although an output schema exists, the description is too thin to guide correct invocation of alert rule creation.

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 0% for the single required parameter 'regra_payload', which is an open nested object with additionalProperties true. The description mentions validated parameters but does not explain the payload structure, required fields, or expected shape, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb ('Criar') and resource ('nova regra de alerta no Grafana Alerting'), so an agent can tell it creates an alert rule. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like grafana_atualizar_regra_alerta, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this versus siblings such as grafana_atualizar_regra_alerta or grafana_listar_regras_alerta. The word 'nova' hints at creation-only semantics, but there are no explicit conditions or exclusions.

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