Delete alert destination

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds substantially more: the write-scope auth requirement, irreversibility ('cannot be undone'), and the crucial consequence that routing removal causes silent non-notification with no incident. That silent-failure warning is exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the scope requirement, then consequence, then alternative. No sentence is filler; each adds auth, risk, or routing context.

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 one-param tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: permission level, reversibility, blast radius, silent-failure risk, diagnostic sibling, and a non-destructive alternative.

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% for the single `id` parameter, which the schema itself documents as a Destination UUID from list_destinations. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (permanently deletes) and resource (notification destination/channel), with a parenthetical clarifying what a destination is. It is distinguishable from siblings like delete_route, update_destination, and set_route without opening any schema.

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?

It routes the agent to alternatives: get_monitor's `routes` to inspect what points at the destination, and set_route to change routing without deleting. It implies when to delete versus re-route, though it never states an explicit 'when to use this' or an exclusion case.

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