create_alert_definition

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false. The description adds behavioral context like 'ANY one symptom firing will trigger the alert', uniqueness requirement for name, and defaults for criticality and adapter_kind. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise and well-structured, with a short introductory sentence followed by an Args list covering all 7 parameters. No unnecessary information; every sentence adds value.

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 the tool's complexity (7 params, 4 required), the description covers all parameters, examples, defaults, and dependencies (prerequisite to list symptoms). It addresses the openWorldHint by mentioning referencing existing definitions. No output schema is provided, but for a creation tool the return is often inferred.

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 only provides names, types, and defaults without descriptions. The description explains every parameter: name uniqueness, description purpose, resource_kind examples, symptom_definition_ids usage, criticality values, adapter_kind default, and target optionality. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 the tool creates a new alert definition referencing existing symptom definitions. It uses a specific verb 'create' and resource 'alert definition', and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_symptom_definitions and 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?

The description advises using list_symptom_definitions() to find symptom_definition_ids, providing clear context for use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives, so it lacks exclusion guidance.

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