Create Alert Routing Rule

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

The annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, and openWorld=true. The description adds a useful routing-mode caveat but does not disclose permissions, side effects, or idempotency behavior beyond the annotations.

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 core action and followed by a relevant routing-mode note. There is little waste and the important caveat is easy to spot.

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?

For a complex nested create tool, the description covers purpose and the advanced-routing alternative, while annotations and the output schema cover safety and return behavior. It could say more about required data shape or advanced routing implications, but the schema fills most field-level gaps.

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?

The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. The schema itself documents nested fields such as name, enabled, conditions, destination, and owning_team_ids, so the baseline is adequate even though the description does not compensate for the reported low coverage signal.

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 states a specific verb and resource: creating a new alert routing rule. It also distinguishes this tool from the sibling Alert Routes endpoint for advanced users, though the phrase "from provided data" is vague.

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 explicitly says advanced alert routing users should use the Alert Routes endpoint instead, and tells uncertain users to contact support. This gives a clear when-not condition and alternative, though it does not describe the normal non-advanced use case in detail.

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