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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description goes further by disclosing the blast radius: every notification route and alert that delivers to it stops reaching it, and a webhook URL is irrecoverable. It does not mention permission requirements or confirm behavior, but the cascade impact is exactly the context an agent needs.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action, then consequence, then the recommended pre-check. Every sentence carries distinct information with no padding.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the missing pieces: irreversible cascade effects and a safety pre-check. Nothing an agent needs to call it responsibly is absent.

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 coverage is 100%, so destination_id and its UUID provenance are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail, which is acceptable given the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete an alert destination') and, via the consequence sentences, distinguishes it from sibling deletions like delete_alert or delete_notification_route. An agent knows exactly what entity is being removed.

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?

Gives a concrete pre-flight instruction: check which routes use it with list_notification_routes first. It does not name alternatives for the deletion itself or state when-not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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