create_alert_rule

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

Annotations already declare this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds the useful operational context that write permission is required, which goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand authorization needs. No contradictions exist.

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 one compact sentence, front-loading the core operation and system, and includes the write-permission caveat without any filler. Every word earns its place.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description provides only the minimal 'create alert rule' framingable and a permission note. It does not cover behaviors like idempotency or return values, but the fully documented schema and annotations partially compensate, making this a minimum-viable definition.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the individual parameter meanings are fully documented. The description adds no extra parameter guidance, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the burden.

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 names a specific verb ('Create'), the resource ('alert rule'), and the system ('LogicMonitor'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like update_alert_rule and delete_alert_rule. An agent can immediately understand the operation without opening the schema.

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 implies the tool is for creating a new alert rule, and it adds the prerequisite that write permission is required. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_alert_rule or delete_alert_rule, leaving the routing to inference from the tool name.

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