Delimit Obs Alerts

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that create/update/delete perform writes while list performs reads, routes through backends.ops_bridge.obs_alerts, and is marked EXPERIMENTAL with a backend-specific alert_rule schema that may evolve. It also notes the absence of a license gate. These are meaningful behavioral disclosures that annotations alone do not provide.

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 organized with clear section headers — 'When to use', 'When NOT to use', 'Sibling contrast', 'Side effects' — and the core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. Despite its length, every section earns its place by addressing a distinct decision or behavior relevant to safe invocation.

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 multi-action nature, the description covers purpose, usage boundaries, sibling differentiation, side effects, experimental risk, and parameter semantics. The output schema is noted as present, so describing return values is unnecessary. No critical information needed to select or invoke the tool correctly appears to be missing.

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 value by explaining the role of each sub-action in plain terms, noting that rule_id is required for delete/update and alert_rule is required for create/update, and warning that alert_rule is backend-specific. This goes beyond the schema's terse property descriptions, though it does not provide concrete example payloads.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Manage alerting rules' — and enumerates the exact sub-actions (list, create, update, delete). It clearly distinguishes this tool from observability siblings like delimit_obs_metrics, delimit_obs_logs, and delimit_obs_status, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 provides explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' guidance, naming the alternative tools for one-shot metric queries, log search, and health rollups. It also warns against misusing 'create' as a delivery retry mechanism, which is exactly the kind of contextual guidance that prevents incorrect invocation.

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