Alerts Drop Alert

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral requirement that confirmation is needed, but does not say whether the drop is irreversible, whether confirm=false causes an error or a no-op, or what dependent objects (schedules/notifications) are removed.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with the confirmation requirement immediately following. No filler or 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?

An output schema and rich annotations (destructive/not-idempotent) carry most of the load, and the description signals confirmation. But for a destructive DDL operation it omits the confirmation mechanics (does confirm=false fail or skip?) and irreversible consequences, which an agent needs before invoking.

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 75%; the schema documents database, alert_name, and schema_name quoting behavior. The only undocumented parameter is confirm, which the description gestures at ('Requires confirmation') without stating that it must be true to succeed, so the description adds limited value over 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Drop an alert in Snowflake'), which unambiguously distinguishes it from siblings like alerts_list_alerts, alerts_describe_alert, and alerts_create_alert. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the drop/delete intent is unmistakable from the name and text.

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?

'Requires confirmation' implies the tool should be called with confirm set, which is a usage hint. However, it never states when to prefer dropping over suspending the alert (alerts_suspend_alert exists as a non-destructive alternative) or what prerequisites exist, leaving the agent to infer.

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