pbs_notification_matcher_delete

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

Since annotations are absent, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it is a mutation, dry-run by default, synchronous execution, returns null on PBS side, and the specific JSON response. Also notes irreversibility and alert routing implications.

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 that are front-loaded with 'MUTATION' and immediately convey the action. Every sentence adds essential information without 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?

Given the tool's complexity (delete with dry-run, no undo, config requirement) and the presence of an output schema (mentioned in context), the description covers return shape, synchronous nature, and prerequisites completely.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the dry-run default and the effect of the confirm parameter (dry-run vs execute), and mentions the name parameter implicitly. This goes beyond the schema's basic type/description.

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 explicitly states 'MUTATION: delete a PBS notification matcher' with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning the alternative 'pbs_notification_matcher_set' and explaining the impact on routing alerts.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use: default dry-run behavior, confirm flag for execution, and states that there is no undo primitive. Also mentions the prerequisite 'Needs PROXIMO_PBS_* config' and the consequence that alerts go unrouted until re-created.

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