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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description goes well beyond them: it specifies that the entire firing history is destroyed, that the action is irreversible, and that a confirm phrase from the first call gates the second. That is exactly the extra context an agent needs before a destructive call.

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 destructive and irreversible nature is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the call protocol, the preferred alternative, and then per-parameter notes plus a concrete example. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is buried.

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, multi-step tool this covers the full operational picture: irreversibility, the confirm handshake, the preferred non-destructive alternative, eligibility limits, parameter sourcing, and defaults. Since an output schema exists, the description rightly does not spend space explaining return values.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it does: ref is the custom rule's uuid from list_alert_rules, confirm is the phrase returned by the first call's output, and workspace accepts an id, name, or org-name/workspace-name with a default noted. Each parameter gains meaning not present in the bare schema.

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 custom alert rule AND its entire firing history') and immediately distinguishes scope with 'custom' and 'Irreversible'. It also names the sibling alternative (update_alert_rule) and rules out a class of targets (predefined rules), so an agent can tell it apart without opening another schema.

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 explicit when/when-not: prefer update_alert_rule with enabled false to keep history and stay reversible, and predefined rules cannot be deleted at all. It also documents the required two-call confirm protocol, so the invocation sequence is unambiguous.

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