Attach key/value properties to a JSM alert

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

The description thoroughly discloses behavior beyond the annotations: the operation is asynchronous, it merges by key, untouched keys are preserved, and existing keys are overwritten without warning. This directly supports the destructiveHint=true annotation and adds material context the agent needs before calling.

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 description is detailed but every sentence earns its place: purpose, distinction from notes, args, return shape, async warning, overwrite warning, and a concrete example. It is well-structured and front-loads the core behavior before edge-case warnings.

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 tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it covers async verification, return fields, destructive merge semantics, how to retrieve the full alert id, and provides a worked example. Nothing essential is left for the agent to guess.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters and their types. The description adds useful context on top: full alert id vs tinyId, allowed value types, a concrete example, and the effect of merging/overwriting. This goes beyond the schema baseline without being redundant.

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 clearly states the tool attaches key/value context to a JSM alert and can overwrite existing properties. It also distinguishes extra properties from notes, making it easy to tell apart from sibling tools like jsm_add_alert_note.

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 explains when this tool is appropriate: for structured, programmatically readable context, unlike prose notes. It also gives explicit guidance on prerequisites and follow-up: read the alert first with jsm_get_alert to avoid clobbering keys, and verify completion with jsm_get_request_status because the action is asynchronous.

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