Create Alert Route

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent), and the description goes well beyond that: feature gating, automatic async processing when the rule graph exceeds the request timeout, the size metric (rules plus condition groups, conditions, destinations), and the fact that the returned rules list can be stale. One flaw: it tells the agent to poll with "the `request_id` you supplied," but no such field exists in the schema, which could send an agent hunting for a nonexistent parameter.

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?

Headers and bold emphasis front-load the access prerequisite and the async caveat, which is good structure. But the async discussion sprawls across four paragraphs, and the closing "contact Rootly customer support" sentence largely repeats the support mention already made in the opening note, so the length is not fully earned.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value explanation is correctly omitted, and annotations cover the mutation profile. The description covers the two things an agent could not infer elsewhere — the Advanced Alert Routing entitlement and the asynchronous rule-creation caveat. The only meaningful omission is any hint about the `data` payload contract, which the schema itself carries.

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 0% — the single `data` parameter is undocumented — and the description adds no semantics about its shape, required attributes (name, alerts_source_ids), or the rules/destinations/condition_groups nesting. It even references a `request_id` parameter that is absent from the schema. The deeply nested field-level descriptions in the schema do most of the real work, which limits the practical harm, but the description itself contributes nothing here.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource ("Creates a new alert route"), which is enough to separate it from update_alert_route, patch_alert_route and create_alert_routing_rule by name alone. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, and "from provided data" adds nothing, so it stops 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?

It gives a real prerequisite (Advanced Alert Routing access, contact support if unsure) and post-call guidance (refetch or poll the async status endpoint). However, it never says when to use this versus update_alert_route or create_alert_routing_rule, so the create-vs-update routing decision is left to inference.

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