Run a custom action on a JSM alert

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false): it discloses async execution with an explicit verification step, the silent no-op on unrecognised names with the consequence that 'a successful receipt is not evidence that anything ran', and the fact that the server cannot see what the action does. The production-impact framing ('a request to run somebody's automation against production') gives the agent a concrete risk model beyond the boolean hints.

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?

Long but dense with unique safety-critical content: the guessing warning, async verification, and per-integration constraint all earn their place and the core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. Minor deduction because the 'Args:' and 'Returns:' lines duplicate information already present in the input schema and output schema.

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?

The output schema covers return values and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description's remaining job is the open-world danger, which it handles fully. Every identified failure mode — guessing names, silent no-ops, cross-integration mismatches, async receipt without execution — is addressed with an actionable instruction.

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% and both schema descriptions are already rich: alert_id explains the tinyId distinction and how to obtain the full id, and action_name explains the not-free-text caveat. The description's Args section largely restates this same information, adding no new parameter-level semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Run one of your organisation's own custom alert actions', concretely illustrated with examples like 'Restart service' or 'Roll back deploy'. This clearly separates it from the sibling built-in operations (acknowledge, snooze, assign, escalate, close) by scoping it to org-configured automation rather than platform features.

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?

Provides strong contextual guidance: the agent is told the action name must match a real configured action, is explicitly instructed to 'Ask the user which action they mean, and confirm before running it', and is routed to the follow-up tool jsm_get_request_status for async verification. It also notes per-integration name scoping, though it does not explicitly enumerate which sibling alternatives to prefer instead.

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