Update Alert Urgency

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 elsewhere. The description adds nothing about what a partial update does to unspecified attributes, whether omitted fields are preserved, or what the call returns — the only real gap the annotations leave open.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded and free of padding, but it is under-specified rather than tight. Brevity here comes at the cost of information rather than from efficient phrasing.

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 a nested JSON:API request body and an output schema, the description omits the elements an agent most needs: which attributes can be changed, the partial-vs-full update semantics, and the fact that `data.id` is accepted but ignored (documented only in the schema). The output schema excuses it from explaining return values, but little else is covered.

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 contributes no parameter meaning beyond 'by id'. With overall schema coverage at 50% and a nested `data.attributes` payload (name, position, description, retrigger_timeout_minutes), the description should say which attributes are updatable and whether the update is full-replace or partial; it says none of this.

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 description states a specific verb and resource ('Update a specific alert urgency'), which is clear enough to act on. It offers no differentiation from the sibling CRUD set (get_alert_urgency, create_alert_urgency, list_alert_urgencies), so it stops short of a 5.

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 on when to use this tool versus get_alert_urgency or create_alert_urgency, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing an existing urgency id from list_alert_urgencies. 'By id' implies a lookup requirement but nothing more.

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