Snowflake Drop Alert

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the useful fact that confirmation is required, but omits whether the drop is irreversible (no undrop_alert sibling exists), what permissions are needed, or how database/schema context is resolved.

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 with the action front-loaded and the prerequisite second – no wasted words. It is efficient, though extremely terse given the tool's four parameters.

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 exists so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the destructive profile. However, with 0% parameter coverage and no note on irreversibility or qualified-name requirements, the description is only minimally complete for a destructive multi-parameter tool.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and only touches 'confirmation' via 'Requires confirmation.' The database, schema_name, and alert_name parameters are left entirely unexplained, giving an agent no guidance on qualified naming or scope.

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 and resource ('Drop an alert in Snowflake'), making it clearly distinguishable from sibling alert operations like snowflake_list_alerts, snowflake_describe_alert, snowflake_suspend_alert, or snowflake_create_alert. It does not, however, explicitly name which sibling to prefer for non-destructive alternatives, so it stops short of the top score.

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' signals a prerequisite, but the description never says when to drop vs. suspend/resume an alert, nor when dropping is inappropriate. No alternatives or exclusions are offered, leaving usage context to inference.

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