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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: annotations only say destructiveHint=false, while the description explains *why* — the alerts are not deleted and remain retrievable via hl_poll_alerts. It does not cover whether re-linking is possible or whether any auth/ownership scope applies, keeping it below a 5.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action, with the parenthetical carrying the non-obvious consequence. No filler.

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 zero-param mutation with an output schema and safety annotations already present, the description covers the essential agent question: what is destroyed vs. preserved. Only the reversibility path (re-link via hl_link_telegram) is left implicit.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies the target key is implicit in the call context rather than passed as an argument.

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 ('Stop pushing this key's alerts to Telegram') and scopes it to a single key, which cleanly separates it from hl_link_telegram and from alert-management siblings like hl_delete_alert.

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 use case is clear from the verb — call this to end Telegram delivery — and it explicitly points to hl_poll_alerts as the alternative path for still reading alerts. It stops short of naming hl_link_telegram as the reverse operation or stating any preconditions (e.g., whether a link must exist), so not quite a full when/when-not treatment.

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