create_composite_alert

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the stale data behavior (clauses must be fresh to be evaluated), which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not mention creation side effects, idempotency, or permission requirements, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and a concise behavioral note. Every word earns its place, with no waste or redundancy.

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 create operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description is thin. It explains the core mechanism but omits return value information, prerequisites, and operational context. An agent would need additional detail to confidently invoke this tool and handle the response.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates for parameters. It clarifies the 'clause' concept (symbol/timeframe pair + condition) and the AND/OR combine logic, which helps with the 'clauses' and 'combine' parameters. But it does not explain 'cooldown_seconds', 'idempotency_key', 'request_id', or 'note', leaving most parameters semantically unexplained.

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 clearly states it creates an alert that combines multiple clauses with AND/OR logic, which is a specific action and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling 'create_alert' by emphasizing the composite nature of the alert.

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 usage for multi-clause alerts but does not explicitly state when to use this over 'create_alert' or provide exclusions. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer, but it lacks explicit when-to-use guidance.

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