Update alert

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

The annotations already disclose that this is non-destructive, idempotent, and not read-only. The description adds useful partial-update behavior: omitted fields retain their values, but it does not explain allowed fields, clearing semantics, or permission requirements.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted language. It conveys the core operation and partial-update behavior efficiently.

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 mutation tool with a nested arbitrary "changes" object and no output schema, the description is only minimally sufficient. It omits what alert fields can be changed and how values should be cleared or represented, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent.

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 schema already defines both parameters. The description adds that unspecified fields in "changes" keep their values, but does not provide further field-level semantics or clarify the arbitrary nested object structure.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Change fields of an existing alert." It distinguishes update from create/delete implicitly via "existing" and "change fields," but does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied by "existing alert," making clear this is for modification rather than creation or deletion. However, it does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or when to prefer a different alert tool.

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