Delete one of your alert recipes (writes to your account)

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description earns credit for going further: it explains that an unknown id is a safe no-op that reports itself, that writes are rate limited per connection (sign-in or key), and that each write is recorded on the account. That is exactly the operational context an agent needs before a destructive call.

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 clauses: trigger first, then the action and no-op behavior, then rate-limit/audit facts. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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-param destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers trigger, id provenance, failure semantics, and rate limiting. The only gap is the response shape on success, which is minor given the no-op case is described.

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 param's schema description already points to list_alert_recipes, so baseline is high. The description reinforces the id's provenance and adds non-obvious semantics — a stale/foreign id silently changes nothing — which is real value beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Deletes the alert recipe with this id') and explicitly scopes it to the account. It also points to list_alert_recipes as the id source, so an agent can immediately distinguish it from create_alert_recipe and list_alert_recipes.

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?

'Call this when the user asks to remove an alert' is an explicit trigger condition, and 'list_alert_recipes shows the ids' supplies the prerequisite lookup step. It lacks an explicit when-not clause (e.g., versus editing a recipe), but the context is clear enough to route correctly.

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