Create Alert Group

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only a field-deprecation recommendation, which is parameter guidance rather than behavioral context; it says nothing about side effects (e.g. that the group begins grouping/routing alerts immediately), name-uniqueness constraints, required permissions, or owning-team feature gating.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, with the migration advice second. No filler; the deprecation note earns its space because the schema marks those fields deprecated but the description explains the preferred path. Slightly verbose in enumerating three legacy fields by name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the nested field semantics largely live in the schema. However, for a creation tool with a deeply nested payload, the description omits whether `targets` are effectively required for the group to do anything, whether `name` must be unique, and what happens to alerts arriving during 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?

Top-level schema description coverage is reported as 0% for the single `data` wrapper, though nested properties carry their own descriptions. The description compensates on the highest-value decision by recommending `conditions` over the legacy `group_by_alert_title`, `group_by_alert_urgency` and `attributes` fields, but says nothing about `targets`, `time_window`, `condition_type` or `owner_group_ids`.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource ("Creates a new alert group"), which cleanly separates it from list_alert_groups, get_alert_group and update_alert_group in the sibling set. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with update_alert_group or noting preconditions, but the intent is unmistakable.

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?

Usage is only implied by the name and the deprecation note. The note steers the agent toward `conditions` over the legacy fields, which is field-level guidance rather than tool-level when/when-not guidance. There is no statement about when to create a group versus reusing an existing one, or what prerequisites (targets, owning teams) must exist first.

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