update_alert_rule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'Update an existing alert rule' implies a mutation operation, but it lacks details on permissions required, whether updates are idempotent or reversible, error handling (e.g., invalid UID), or side effects (e.g., triggering alerts). This leaves critical behavioral aspects unclear for a tool with significant mutation potential.

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, straightforward sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. This efficiency is appropriate for a basic tool definition, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.

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 complexity (10 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what an alert rule is in this context, what the update entails, or what the tool returns. For a mutation tool with rich input schema but no structural guidance, this minimal description leaves too many gaps for effective use.

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?

With 10 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no parameter explanations. The description adds no semantic information about parameters—it doesn't mention that 'uid' identifies the rule to update, what 'condition' or 'data' represent, or the meaning of enums like 'noDataState'. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation, leaving parameters largely ambiguous.

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 'Update an existing alert rule' clearly states the verb ('update') and resource ('alert rule'), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_alert_rule' or 'delete_alert_rule' beyond the basic verb, nor does it specify what aspects of an alert rule can be updated. This makes it vague about the exact scope of the operation.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing alert rule UID), contrast with 'create_alert_rule' or 'delete_alert_rule', or specify contexts like partial vs. full updates. Without such information, an agent might misuse it or overlook better options.

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