set_alert_definition_state

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it labels the operation as [WRITE], explains that disabling is reversible while deleting is not, and states the return fields (definition_id, enabled, action taken). This goes beyond the annotations without 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 two sentences with no redundancy. The [WRITE] marker and primary action are front-loaded, and the alternative guidance is compact and directly actionable. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple mutation tool with all parameters schema-documented and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and how it differs from the destructive sibling. An agent has enough to select and call this 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small amount of semantic context by equating disabling with 'silencing' a definition, but it does not materially explain any parameter beyond what the schema already provides (definition_id from list_alert_definitions, enabled True/False).

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 a specific verb ('Enable or disable') and a specific resource ('an existing alert definition'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_alert_definition and create_alert_definition. It leaves no ambiguity about what action the tool performs.

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?

It explicitly gives the condition for choosing this tool over delete_alert_definition: 'Use this instead of delete_alert_definition when you only want to silence a definition'. It also explains the rationale (reversible vs. irreversible), providing clear when-to-use guidance.

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