Update Alert Route

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

With annotations already covering read/write, idempotency and open-world reach, the description still adds substantial non-obvious behavior: async rule processing triggered by rule-graph size, the fact that size counts existing route rules not just the payload, and that the response's rules list will be stale after an async update. That is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey. It loses a point because it instructs the agent to poll 'with the `request_id` you supplied', yet no such parameter exists in the schema — a misleading operational detail.

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?

The access note is appropriately front-loaded, but the asynchronous section runs three paragraphs with repetition ('asynchronous rule processing', 'when enabled', 'automatically... when enabled') for a caveat that only applies to organizations with very large rule graphs. The signal is valuable; the word count is not proportionate, and it crowds out sibling differentiation.

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 on a complex nested resource, the description covers the two things an agent could not infer — feature-gating and eventual consistency of the rules list — and an output schema exists to explain return values. The only real hole is the missing comparison with `patch_alert_route` and the phantom `request_id` reference.

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 coverage is 50%, and the description says nothing about `id` or `data` beyond the one-line purpose. In practice the nested schema is extremely well documented per field, so the agent is not left stranded, but the description itself contributes zero parameter meaning — baseline 3.

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 route by id.' That is unambiguous. However, the description never distinguishes this tool from the two obvious siblings, `patch_alert_route` (likely a partial update) and `update_alert_routing_rule`, so an agent still has to guess which of the three to call for a given intent.

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 does give a real prerequisite ('requires access to Advanced Alert Routing' plus a support-contact path) and post-call guidance (refetch or poll the async status endpoint). But it never says when to use this tool versus `patch_alert_route` or the dedicated rule endpoints, which is the main routing decision an agent faces here.

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