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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the bar is lower, but the description still adds two things they do not cover: the deletion is permanent/irreversible and it requires a verified account holding the `alertas:write` scope. That auth requirement is genuinely useful pre-call context.

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 sentences with no filler; the destructive/permanent nature is front-loaded before the auth requirement, so the most decision-relevant fact lands first.

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 one-parameter delete tool, an output schema exists (so return values need no explanation) and the schema fully documents the parameter. Combined with the permanence and auth-scope statements, an agent has what it needs, though a note on ownership limits or confirmation requirements would make it airtight.

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% — the single `id` parameter is already documented in the schema, including its provenance from `alertas_listar`. The description adds no extra meaning about the identifier, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Elimina una alerta tuya'), scoped to the caller's own alerts, which cleanly separates it from alertas_listar, alertas_crear and alertas_editar. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 gives a precondition (verified account with `alertas:write` scope) but never states when to delete versus edit or otherwise manage an alert, nor any when-not guidance. Usage is implied rather than instructed.

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