Update Alert Group

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

Annotations already declare mutation, idempotency, open-world scope, and non-destructiveness, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful deprecation steering for legacy grouping fields, but omits a key behavioral detail for an update: whether omitted fields are preserved (partial/PATCH semantics) or reset.

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, then the compatibility note. No wasted text, though the note is somewhat narrative where a shorter pointer to `conditions` would suffice.

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 deeply nested mutation tool with only 50% parameter coverage this description does comparatively little, though the schema's own nested descriptions and the presence of an output schema reduce the burden. The most important missing piece for correct invocation — full-replace versus partial-update semantics — is not addressed.

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 description coverage is 50%, and the nested schema carries rich per-field descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by flagging `group_by_alert_title`, `group_by_alert_urgency`, and `attributes` as legacy in favor of `conditions`, but says nothing about the required `id`/`data` structure beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('Update a specific alert group by id'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like create_alert_group, get_alert_group, and list_alert_groups. It does not explicitly name which sibling to prefer, but the verb makes the operation unambiguous.

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?

The description implies usage ('update a specific alert group') and adds a steering note toward `conditions` over the legacy grouping fields, but that guidance is about field choice, not about when to call this tool versus get_alert_group or create_alert_group. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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