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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, i.e. a live destructive write operation. The description states the tool has been removed and performs no such action, directly contradicting the declared write/destructive behavior. Per the rules this is an annotation 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?

A single short sentence with the most important token ('Removed:') front-loaded, so an agent skimming the description immediately learns the tool is gone. No filler or repetition.

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 retired tool, the description delivers the one fact an agent needs: don't call this, manage destinations in the web app. It omits whether invocation returns an error or silently no-ops, and references no in-surface replacement, but otherwise it is complete for its purpose.

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 67%, with label, enabled, and destination_id defined in the schema (enabled and destination_id carry their own descriptions). The tool description adds nothing about parameters at all, so it fails to compensate for the uncovered 'label' parameter.

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 never states what update_destination does; it only announces that the tool is removed. The verb+resource pairing is absent, replaced by a deprecation notice that redirects to the Ticker web app. It conveys the resource domain (alert destinations/settings) but not the operation, so an agent cannot infer functionality from it.

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?

It does give a use/don't-use signal: rename, pause, or delete destinations via Settings in the web app rather than this tool. That is actionable guidance, but it names no MCP sibling alternative (delete_destination still appears in the sibling list) and doesn't say what happens if the tool is invoked anyway.

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