update_alert_rule

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and a non-destructive operation (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the authorization requirement, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose partial-update versus full-replace semantics or behavior for a non-existent rule_id, leaving key uncertainty.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler: verb, resource, platform, and permission. It is efficient, though the terseness means it forgoes the chance to include usage guidance that would improve its overall value.

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 complete parameter schema and annotations provide the core calling contract, and the description adds an auth note. Remaining gaps include no usage guidance, no explicit partial-update semantics, and no indication of what the tool returns. This is adequate but not thorough.

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% – each parameter has its own description (e.g., 'Updated alert level filter'). The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and identifies the resource ('alert rule'), with platform context ('in LogicMonitor'). The update verb distinguishes it from sibling operations like get_alert_rule, create_alert_rule, and delete_alert_rule, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. 'Requires write permission' is an authorization prerequisite, not a usage rule. It fails to mention that this tool is for modifying an existing alert rule, which would help differentiate it from create_alert_rule.

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