news_alert_delete

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which align with a permanent delete. However, the description fails to disclose the two-step confirm mechanism (confirm=False returns a confirmation prompt), a key behavioral trait beyond what annotations provide, leaving the agent unaware of this flow.

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?

The description is very short and structured with Args/Returns sections, making it easy to parse. However, it sacrifices important information about the confirm flag, which could have been included without significant bloat.

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 destructive nature and the two-step confirm pattern, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to use confirm, the confirmation prompt, or the return format beyond 'Bestaetigung oder Fehlermeldung'. Even with an output schema present, the behavioral gap is significant for correct tool execution.

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 input schema already describes both parameters (alert_id and confirm) with detailed descriptions. The description adds only the source of alert_id ('aus news_alert_list') but does not elaborate on the confirm parameter, providing minimal added value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states that the tool deletes a configured alert permanently, using the verb 'loescht' and specifying the resource 'Alert'. It distinguishes from siblings like news_alert_create and news_alert_list, but omits mention of the two-step confirm process.

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 advises that the alert_id comes from news_alert_list, providing minimal sourcing guidance. However, it lacks when-not-to-use instructions or alternatives, and does not mention the confirm flag's role, which is critical for proper invocation.

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