create_alert_definition

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

The description discloses several behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it returns the new definition's id and name, notes name uniqueness ('must be unique in Aria Operations'), explains OR logic for symptom_definitions, and specifies default adapter_kind and target. This adds valuable context without contradicting the annotations (readOnlyHint=false is consistent with '[WRITE]').

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 longer than average but well-structured: a clear opening sentence, return value note, usage guidelines, and a parameter list. The parameter list duplicates the schema but is necessary given 0% schema coverage. Every sentence serves a purpose, though it could be slightly tightened.

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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description adequately covers the return value (id and name). It also covers prerequisites, parameter details, defaults, and alternatives, making it complete for a complex creation tool with 7 parameters.

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's concise parameter explanations are essential. It details each parameter's meaning, valid values (e.g., resource_kind options, criticality levels), defaults, and the role of symptom_definition_ids. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 'Create a new alert definition referencing existing symptom definitions' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning the return of id and name and contrasting with set_alert_definition_state.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Run list_symptom_definitions first for symptom_definition_ids' and 'to silence an existing definition use set_alert_definition_state rather than creating a variant.' This names the exact alternative and prerequisite, making it clear when to use this tool versus others.

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