update_alertUpdate an existing Rootly alert by ID, including its summary, description, timing, labels, groups, services, environments, urgency, and custom field values.
Updates an alert
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Required. ID of the alert (fills `{id}` in /v1/alerts/{id}). Pass it as `id` -- this tool has no `alert_id` argument. | |
| data | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing on top: it does not mention that the JSON:API `data.id` is ignored in favor of the path id, that `source` is deprecated, or that `actor` attribution is conditional on org settings and API key type — all behaviorally significant facts that live only in the schema.
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?
Three words is not conciseness but under-specification — there is nothing to front-load because no content exists. Brevity here costs the agent all routing and payload guidance.
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 mutation tool with nested objects, conditional actor attribution, deprecated fields, and an id-vs-data.id ambiguity, the description provides none of the context needed to call it correctly. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but everything else is missing.
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 only 50% schema description coverage at the top level and a deeply nested payload, the description should compensate by naming key updatable attributes or the partial-update semantics. It says nothing about `id`, the `data.attributes` envelope, or which fields are mutable, leaving the agent to read the entire nested schema unaided.
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 text 'Updates an alert' only restates the tool name and title, adding no specificity beyond the verb+resource already implied. It does not distinguish it from the many sibling update tools that operate on alert-adjacent resources (update_alert_event, update_alert_group, update_alert_urgency, update_alerts_source), nor does it say what fields of an alert are updatable.
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?
There is no guidance whatsoever on when to use this tool, when not to, or which alternative to pick. An agent cannot tell from the description whether this is for status changes, field corrections, or bulk metadata edits, nor whether a dedicated sibling (e.g. update_alert_event) would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.