Update Alert Event

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

Annotations already declare it is a non-destructive, idempotent, open-world write. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: only note-kind events are mutable and the reason is audit-trail integrity. It does not cover permission requirements or what happens to unspecified attributes, so not a 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action then the constraint then the rationale. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 two-parameter mutation with an output schema and full annotations, the description supplies the critical eligibility constraint that structured fields cannot express. The remaining gap is payload guidance for the nested `data` object, which is partly covered by schema property descriptions.

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?

Schema coverage is 50% and the description never mentions any parameter by name. The 'note' framing implicitly clarifies that the payload is the note text, but it adds no detail on `id` vs. the nested `data.attributes.details`/`user_id` structure that the schema leaves partially undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Updates a specific alert event') and immediately narrows the scope with the 'kind note' restriction. It is clearly a mutation counterpart to create_alert_event/get_alert_event, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Provides a strong when-not rule: system-generated events are immutable. This prevents a whole class of failed calls. It lacks an explicit routing statement to alternatives (e.g., use create_alert_event for new notes, get_alert_event to inspect), so it falls short of a 5.

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