delete_alert_rule

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well for the critical trait: it declares the destructive cascade (all produced alerts) and that the operation is irreversible. It does not cover permission/auth requirements or failure behaviour, so it falls short of 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?

Three tight sentences, irreversibility and the safer alternative front-loaded ahead of the Args note. Every clause earns its place and nothing repeats structured data.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the two things an agent most needs: the blast radius and the reversible alternative. It omits what the call returns and any auth/permission requirement, leaving a small but real gap.

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 0% — the schema only offers a bare 'Rule Id' integer — so the description must compensate, and it does by tying rule_id to list_alert_rules. It adds provenance meaning beyond the schema, though no format/validity detail (e.g. what an invalid id does).

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 ('Delete an alert rule') and immediately widens the scope to the cascade ('and every alert it produced'), which is the distinguishing detail versus sibling delete_criterion or set_alert_rule_enabled. An agent can tell this apart from its siblings without opening 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?

Explicitly names the preferred alternative — set_alert_rule_enabled(rule_id, False) — and the condition that selects it ('to just pause it'). It also tells the agent where to obtain the argument (list_alert_rules), closing the loop on invocation.

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