delete_alerts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that deletion is permanent and irreversible, and that changing an alert requires delete+recreate. While it does not mention potential bulk deletion when using filters (e.g., name/status/symbol without IDs), the core destructive behavior is clearly communicated.

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 sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose and permanence, the second explains the edit limitation, and the third offers an alternative. Information is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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?

The description covers the core destructive nature and provides an alternative, but it omits a critical safety context: if no alert_ids are given, the tool will delete all alerts matching the provided filters, which could be many. For a destructive tool, this is a significant gap. However, the rest of the context (permanence, no edit endpoint) is present, making it above the bare minimum.

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 already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional parameter detail. It does not explain how multiple filters combine (AND/OR) or the risk of omitting alert_ids, but the schema's existing descriptions are sufficient to make the parameters understandable. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Permanently delete') and resource ('TradingView alerts'), clearly distinguishing it from other alert-related tools. It also implicitly contrasts with pause_alerts, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 clear context for when to use deletion and explicitly names an alternative: 'To stop an alert temporarily, use pause_alerts instead.' It also explains the delete+recreate pattern due to no edit endpoint. However, it does not mention when not to use it beyond the temporary case, so it stops short of a full 5.

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