create_alert_definition

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description explicitly says '[WRITE]' and describes the OR logic across symptom ids. This adds behavioral context beyond annotations, but could also mention that it creates a new resource and name uniqueness.

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 well-structured with an initial summary line and a bulleted Args block. Each sentence serves a purpose, though a few phrases (e.g., 'Alert definition name') could be slightly tightened without loss.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no enums, the description covers all input parameters and prerequisite steps. It lacks explicit mention of the return value (likely the new definition ID), but this is common for creation tools and does not cripple usability.

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%, but the description provides detailed meaning for all 7 parameters: name uniqueness, description purpose, resource_kind values, symptom_definition_ids as UUIDs with OR logic, criticality options, adapter_kind default, and target optional. This fully compensates for the missing schema 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?

Description starts with '[WRITE] Create a new alert definition' which clearly states the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_alert_definitions and delete_alert_definition by using a different verb and specifying it creates new definitions.

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 advises using list_symptom_definitions() to find symptom_definition_ids, providing clear prerequisite context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives for other operations, though the sibling list covers many cases.

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