set_alert_definition_state

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and destructiveHint=false (non-destructive). The description adds context by specifying it's a state toggle and marking '[WRITE]'. It does not elaborate on side effects beyond enabling/disabling, but is consistent with annotations. No contradiction.

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 extremely concise with two short paragraphs: a front-loaded purpose line with '[WRITE]' marker and a structured argument list. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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 state-toggle tool with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: purpose, parameter origins, and optionality. It lacks explicit mention of idempotency (annotation says false) or potential impacts on alerting, but given the tool's simplicity, it is adequate.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains each parameter with practical details: definition_id is a UUID from list_alert_definitions, enabled is a boolean to set state, and target is an optional field. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type-only information, though target could benefit from more specifics about default behavior.

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 enables or disables an existing alert definition, using a specific verb ('enable or disable') and resource ('alert definition'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_alert_definition, delete_alert_definition, and list_alert_definitions by focusing on state change of an existing entity.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool: to enable or disable an alert definition. It provides the source for the definition_id ('from list_alert_definitions'), guiding the user. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, slightly reducing clarity.

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