snowflake_drop_alert

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention 'Requires confirmation,' which alerts the agent that confirmation input is needed, but it does not elaborate on the destructive and potentially irreversible nature of the operation, authorization requirements, or side effects. The statement is minimal and leaves significant behavioral context unstated for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. It is concise with no filler or redundancy, which is ideal for a simple tool. However, conciseness is achieved at the expense of necessary detail, but dimension 5 rewards conciseness and structure separately from completeness.

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?

Given 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations, the description is far from sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly. It does not explain how to construct a valid call, what the confirmation flag does precisely, or whether database/schema_name are optional scope qualifiers. The output schema exists, but the description still leaves critical usage information missing.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It does not describe what 'confirm' does (beyond a vague 'Requires confirmation'), nor does it explain the role of 'database' and 'schema_name' in qualifying the alert. The description adds no meaning beyond the raw schema; an agent cannot infer correct usage for the optional parameters or the exact confirmation logic.

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 clearly states the specific action and resource: 'Drop an alert in Snowflake.' This is a distinct operation from other drop tools in the sibling list (e.g., drop_table, drop_database) because it names the alert resource explicitly. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as suspend_alert, resume_alert, or create_alert. It does not mention conditions for using it, nor any exclusions. The only hint is 'Requires confirmation,' which is more behavioral than usage guidance. No explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' context is provided.

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