update_alert

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the '[Write]' tag and 'Use acknowledge_alert / close_alert for state changes' merely restate or lightly reinforce that. The one added behavioral fact is that some modifications are out of scope for this tool, but nothing is said about permission requirements, whether repeated calls overwrite or merge, or side effects like notifications.

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?

Three compact sentences with zero filler: purpose first, then the allowed-field contract, then the sibling routing rule, then a write marker. Every sentence carries information an agent needs before calling.

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 2-parameter mutation with a nested object and no output schema, the description covers purpose, allowed fields and alternative tools, which is adequate. It leaves open what the call returns (the updated alert record?) and what values the untyped nested properties accept, which matters more here because the nested property schemas carry no type information.

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% at the top level ('Alert number or sys_id', 'Fields to set'), so the baseline is 3. The description enumerates the allowed field keys, but those keys already appear as properties in the nested schema, and the description adds no value semantics the schema lacks (e.g., whether maintenance is a boolean, whether work_notes appends, what format kb expects).

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?

States a specific verb pair ('Assign or annotate') applied to a specific resource ('an alert'), and the sibling alert tools are named in the next sentence so the agent can place it in the family. The verb undersells the actual scope slightly, since short_description/description/kb edits are more than assignment or annotation, but the field list immediately corrects that.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent elsewhere for lifecycle transitions: 'Use acknowledge_alert / close_alert for state changes.' That is a real when/when-not boundary against the two closest siblings. It does not state preconditions such as required role or that the alert must already exist, so it stops short of full guidance.

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