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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that ('WRITE: available to any authenticated user'), but does not explain reversibility, what exactly is destroyed, or side effects.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the effect and followed by the auth note. Zero filler; only the terse 'WRITE:' phrasing slightly limits readability.

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 mutation with no output schema and annotations already covering safety, the description supplies the purpose, effect, and auth requirement. Nothing critical is missing, though it could state whether the removal is reversible.

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 parameter is already documented as 'The suppression id (UUID), from suppress_signal or list_suppressions'. The description adds no further meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is correct.

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 (remove), resource (alert suppression), and the concrete effect (alerts for that scope resume paging). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like suppress_signal and list_suppressions without needing to open any schema.

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?

Usage is implied: undo a suppression to resume paging. It does not explicitly contrast with suppress_signal or state when-not to use it, though the schema points to suppress_signal/list_suppressions for obtaining the id. Adequate but leaves the when/alternatives to inference.

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