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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the authorization prerequisite (verified account, scope `alertas:write`), which is not present in the structured fields.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the action semantics come first and the auth requirement second, so an agent gets the key constraint immediately.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers action, non-destructive scope, and auth requirements. It is only slightly short on how this differs from alertas_editar for an agent choosing among five sibling alert tools.

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 100% and both parameters are documented there, including where `id` comes from (alertas_listar) and what `activa` true/false mean. The description only restates the toggle semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb pair (activar/pausar) plus resource (alerta) and an explicit scope qualifier ('sin borrarla' / 'tuya'), which separates it from alertas_eliminar. It stops short of naming alertas_editar or alertas_listar as adjacent options, so an agent must still infer the boundary with editing.

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 phrase 'sin borrarla' implies the contrast with alertas_eliminar and usage is reasonably implied by the toggle framing, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement or routing to alternatives such as alertas_editar for changing alert contents.

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