alert_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered structurally. The description still adds real value by stressing permanence, that only explicit IDs (no filter/wildcard scope) are affected, and that the operation includes a post-delete confirmation that those exact IDs are gone.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence with no filler; permanence and the ID constraint lead. The trailing "confirm those exact IDs disappeared" is slightly ambiguous about who performs the confirmation and how, but it earns its place as a post-condition hint.

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 destructive, non-idempotent batch tool with no output schema, the description covers intent and precondition but leaves gaps: what "resolving" concretely means, behavior on partial failure, and whether the confirmation is internal or requires a follow-up call. Adequate but not complete.

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 67% (target_id and expected_layout_id already documented in-schema). The description adds meaning to alert_ids by emphasizing "explicit" IDs and "those exact IDs", ruling out pattern or filter semantics, but it says nothing about the 50-item cap, ordering, or partial-failure handling.

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?

Specific verb+resource: "Permanently delete explicit alert IDs" clearly distinguishes this from alert_pause/alert_update/alert_clear-style siblings by scoping it to explicit IDs. It doesn't name an alternative tool, but the operation and its scope are unambiguous.

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?

"only after resolving them" gives one precondition (IDs must be resolved first), which implies calling alert_list/alert_reconcile beforehand, but that inference is left to the agent. No explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance (e.g. pause vs delete) is offered.

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