Update Alert Routing Rule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing about what the update does beyond the annotations — no mention of partial vs full replacement, whether omitted attributes are preserved, or effects on live alert evaluation. The advanced-routing caveat is a usage hint, not behavioral disclosure.

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 action and followed by the caveat. The bolded support-escalation sentence is slightly verbose but does not pad the definition.

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?

An output schema and annotations are present, so return values and safety needn't be explained. However, for a mutation tool with a complex nested payload and only 50% schema description coverage, the description should say whether this is a partial update and what happens to existing conditions/destination when omitted.

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 only says 'by id', which the schema already documents at length. With schema coverage at 50% and a deep nested `data.attributes` object, the description gives no guidance on partial-update semantics, required attributes, or how conditions/destination interact.

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 routing rule by id'), which is enough to distinguish it from list_alert_routing_rules, create_alert_routing_rule and get_alert_routing_rule. The added note also points toward update_alert_route as the alternative endpoint, though it does not name the tool directly.

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 note gives an explicit when-not condition: advanced alert routing users should use the Alert Routes endpoint instead. That is real routing guidance, but it dead-ends for non-advanced users ('contact Rootly customer support') instead of stating a positive condition for using this tool.

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