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

Even though destructiveHint=true already signals mutation, the description adds important behavioral nuance: the alert stops producing matches, disappears from particle_alert_list, and past matches and deliveries are retained for audit. This goes well beyond the annotation and gives the agent a clear model of the tool's 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?

The description is concise and well-structured: the core action is stated first, followed by the essential soft-delete semantics, and finally the routing guidance to the sibling tool. Every sentence earns its place without 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?

For a one-parameter tool with a clear schema and no output schema requirement, the description fully covers what the tool does, its side effects, and the relevant alternative. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema already fully documents alert_id with coverage at 100%. The description does not add parameter-specific guidance, but it also does not need to because the single parameter is straightforwardly described in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('an alert') and immediately clarifies the deletion is a soft delete. It distinguishes itself from particle_alert_update by describing the operational difference, so an agent can clearly tell this tool apart from its siblings.

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 explicitly names the alternative for pausing an alert (particle_alert_update with is_active=false) and contrasts it with removing an alert. This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool versus the most relevant sibling.

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