Assign a JSM alert to a person

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

The description adds important behavioral context beyond the annotations: the action is asynchronous, a requestId is returned, and callers must verify completion with jsm_get_request_status. It also discloses likely error causes (HTTP 422 / failed status = bad account id or no JSM Operations access), which the annotations do not cover.

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 well organized with clear sections for args, returns, async behavior, account_id caveats, examples, and errors. Key information is front-loaded, and even the longer portions earn their place by preventing common failure modes.

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?

Given the tool's mutation, asynchronous behavior, and the need for valid account ids, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, when to use it, parameter nuances, return shape, verification step, and error interpretation. The output schema and sibling context further fill any remaining gaps.

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?

Even though the input schema already documents both parameters well, the description adds practical meaning: alert_id must be the full id rather than tinyId, and account_id is not an email or display name. It also tells the agent where to find valid account ids (jsm_get_on_call, jsm_get_alert) and gives a concrete id format.

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 opens with a specific action and outcome: 'Make one person the owner of a JSM alert, so it is clear who is working it.' It also distinguishes this tool from jsm_add_alert_responder and routing rules, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings without guessing.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: use this when triage has decided whose problem it is, and for a single alert rather than a class of alerts. It names the alternative (jsm_add_alert_responder) and explains when that alternative is appropriate, plus notes that routing rules handle classes of alerts.

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