set_alert_template

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations. It discloses validation against allowed variables, the reset-to-default behavior for empty strings, the read-modify-write merge behavior that preserves other templates, and detailed provider-dependent caveats for {failing_stage} and {body}. Annotations already include destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description is fully consistent with those traits rather than contradicting them.

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 long, but nearly every sentence earns its place by explaining validation, reset semantics, read-modify-write behavior, variable availability, and provider caveats. The main sentence is front-loaded with the core purpose before diving into details. The variable list could arguably be shortened, but it is immediately useful and not redundant.

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 mutating tool with no output schema and a moderately complex template parameter, the description covers side effects, concurrency behavior, validation requirements, reset semantics, and important environment-specific variable limitations. There are no significant gaps that would prevent an agent from using the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds substantial value beyond the schema: it enumerates all allowed template variables, explains the semantic meaning of {body} via pings.body_excerpt, and details CI-provider behavior for {failing_stage}. This materially improves the agent's ability to construct a valid template parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb-plus-resource statement: 'Set or clear a single alert message template on a monitor.' It clearly distinguishes this from the read-only sibling get_alert_templates by emphasizing 'set or clear' and 'single' template, so an agent can immediately identify the operation.

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 context: when to pass an empty string, that this is a read-modify-write preserving other templates, and that a custom template is the only way to control where {body} appears. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool such as get_alert_templates for reading, but the contrast is strongly implied and the context is sufficient for selection.

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