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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation by disclosing the silent side effect on dependent rules ('loses that destination silently ... does not start failing loudly'), the required `channels:manage` capability, and the two-phase confirmation requirement. These are exactly the behavioral facts an agent cannot infer from 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?

Front-loaded with the destructive verb and irreversibility, then consequence, then alternative, then auth, then params. Well ordered, but the trailing example block restates argument shape that the schema and the preceding param sentences already cover, adding some length without new information.

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 destructive, capability-gated tool with an output schema, the description covers consequences, prerequisites, the confirm handshake, and parameter sourcing. Nothing needed to invoke it safely is missing, and return values are rightly left to the output schema.

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%, so the description carries the full load and does: channel_id is sourced from list_alert_channels, confirm is the phrase from the first call's output, and workspace accepts id/name or org-name/workspace-name with a default. All three parameters are disambiguated beyond their bare types.

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 a notification channel') and immediately qualifies it with 'Irreversible.' It also names related siblings (delete_alert_rule, list_alert_channels, update_alert_channel), so an agent can place it precisely in the tool graph.

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?

Explicitly gives a when-not-to-use path: 'Consider update_alert_channel with enabled false instead, which is reversible.' It also documents the two-call preview+confirm flow, which is non-obvious invocation guidance rather than mere context.

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