trigger_alarm_webhook

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns that the tool triggers physical alarm hardware, explains that confirm prevents accidental triggers, and states that confirm must be True. This is highly transparent for a potentially dangerous operation.

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 compact and front-loads the critical warning before parameter details. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the parameter list is structured for quick agent parsing without unnecessary fluff.

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 dangerous but simple trigger tool, the description covers the operation, the required confirmation, parameter formats, and the safety rationale. With an output schema present, return-value documentation is not required. Nothing essential for invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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 must compensate for all parameters. It does: host is explained with accepted formats, webhook_id is identified as the alarm webhook ID, and confirm is given its boolean requirement and safety purpose. This goes well beyond the raw schema.

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 the action ('trigger'), the resource ('alarm manager webhook'), and the means ('by ID'). It does not explicitly name or differentiate from sibling tools, but 'alarm manager webhook' is specific enough to avoid obvious confusion with most siblings.

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 gives clear operational guidance: verify the webhook ID and set confirm to True before execution. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the warning and confirmation requirement make the intended use context unmistakable.

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