delete_seat_alertDelete a seat alert by its ID. Use list_seat_alerts to find the alert ID. Requires authentication.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| alert_id | Yes | ID of the seat alert to delete |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations mark destructiveHint true and readOnly false; the description adds two behavioral facts beyond that: the specific resource being destroyed (a seat alert) and the authentication requirement. These are exactly the kind of context the rubric asks for (what gets destroyed, auth needs). No contradiction with 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?
Three short sentences, each with a distinct job: purpose, ID discovery, and prerequisite. No filler or redundant restating of schema details. It is front-loaded with the core operation.
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 delete tool with no output schema and annotations already covering idempotency and destructive behavior, the description is adequately complete. It states what is deleted, how to find the ID, and a prerequisite. A small gap is the absence of return/error behavior, but that is not critical given the simplicity and annotations.
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?
The schema already covers alert_id fully with a description. The description reinforces that the ID identifies the alert and, more usefully, tells the agent where to obtain it (list_seat_alerts). This adds practical semantic guidance beyond the bare schema field.
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 uses a specific verb+resource pair: 'Delete a seat alert by its ID.' It clearly identifies the target resource and the selection criterion, making it distinct from sibling tools like list_seat_alerts (listing) and create_seat_alert (creation).
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 explicitly instructs the agent to use list_seat_alerts to find the alert ID, which is directly relevant to correctly invoking this tool. It also states the authentication requirement, giving a clear prerequisite. It does not formally discuss when not to use it, but there is no overlapping sibling delete tool, so exclusions are unnecessary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Alerts, search, and reviews are clearly distinct, but find_best_seats, interactive_seat_finder, get_seat_info, and get_seatmap all render interactive seatmaps and overlap in purpose. find_best_seats and interactive_seat_finder are especially hard to distinguish despite minor differences in preferences.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern like create_seat_alert, list_seat_alerts, get_seat_reviews, and search_flight. The main deviations are interactive_seat_finder, which uses a noun phrase instead of a verb, and get_seatmap as a compound rather than get_seat_map.
10 tools is a reasonable size for a flight seatmap server covering seat maps, search, alerts, reviews, and discovery. The count is slightly less clean because interactive_seat_finder largely duplicates find_best_seats, but the overall scope is still manageable.
The core workflow of searching flights, viewing seatmaps, inspecting seats, finding best seats, and managing seat alerts is well covered. Minor gaps include no way to update a seat alert and no way to submit or edit seat reviews, but these are workable limitations.