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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so permanence is partly covered; the description reinforces it and adds genuinely new context via the auth/scope requirement. It still doesn't state whether the alert must be active, whether it's soft vs. hard delete beyond 'permanente', or any rate limits.

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, front-loaded with the action and its permanence, followed by the precondition. No filler or redundancy.

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 needn't be described. Auth requirement, permanence, and target are all covered; only edge-case behavior (missing ID, already-deleted alert) is unaddressed.

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 100% and the single `id` parameter is already documented as coming from `alertas_listar`, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about the identifier format, which is acceptable given full schema coverage — baseline 3.

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+resource ('Elimina una alerta'), scopes it to the caller's own alerts ('tuya'), and notes permanence. It is clearly distinguishable from the alertas_* siblings by name, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with alertas_editar or alertas_listar.

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 gives a real precondition (verified account, scope `alertas:write`), which tells the agent whether the call can succeed. However, it offers no when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance — e.g., that this is the irreversible counterpart to alertas_editar or how it relates to alertas_listar for discovering IDs.

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