set_alert_template

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and idempotent. The description adds crucial behavior beyond annotations: read-modify-write preservation of other templates, validation of allowed variables before saving, and the scope of the write effect. It also clearly states that passing an empty string resets to the built-in default, so an agent understands what gets changed and what does not.

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 dense but most sentences add necessary operational detail, especially the variable list and its caveats. It is front-loaded with the auth requirement and core purpose before moving into detailed variable semantics. Some length is justified by the unusual behavior of the variables.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical context: auth scope, side effects, preservation of other templates, validation, and variable usage. It could have briefly mentioned the response/return after saving, but the absence is minor because the agent can still invoke the tool confidently.

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?

The input schema already documents all parameters at 100% coverage. The description adds significant value by exhaustively listing allowed template variables and clarifying tricky semantics for {failing_stage}, {body}, and {title}. The per-cause override ('cause') is barely expanded beyond the schema, but the descriptive text compensates for the most ambiguous parameter: the template variable set.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'set or clear a single alert message template on a monitor.' It distinguishes itself from sibling get_alert_templates by describing a mutating operation while also clarifying the update model (read-modify-write, per-template preservation).

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 use guidance: requires a write-scope API key, explains how to clear/reset a template with an empty string, and describes the per-cause override semantics. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or directly reference alternatives, but the operation is well-scoped enough that an agent can determine when it applies.

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