tv_delete_alerts

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description goes far beyond: it explains the irreversible nature, the resolution-to-name/symbol step before any deletion, the abort-on-unknown-id behavior, the exact result payload structure, the potential lag with still_present ids, and even a live verification date. This is exemplary behavioral disclosure.

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 front-loaded with the critical mutation warning, then packs each sentence with actionable detail—no redundancy. The structure flows from high-level purpose to execution details and a verification note, every sentence earns its place.

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 operation with no output schema, this is remarkably complete: it covers the endpoint, irreversibility, required confirmation, pre-deletion resolution, abort behavior, response format, and lag characteristics. An agent can predict outcomes and side effects confidently. The only missing element, a formal output schema, is mitigated by the description itself.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions (ids, confirm, layout, expect_layout), so baseline is 3. The description reinforces that confirm must be true and that ids are resolved before deletion, which adds process context but does not fundamentally change parameter semantics. It aligns with the schema rather than adding new meaning.

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 opens with 'MUTATES: PERMANENTLY delete the given alerts' and names the exact REST endpoint, clearly distinguishing this from siblings like tv_pause_alerts and tv_resume_alerts which handle temporary state. The verb 'delete' and resource 'alerts' are specific and 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?

It clearly states the permanent nature ('there is no undo') and the confirm=true requirement, implying this is for final removal rather than temporary suspension. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context makes it obvious when to use this vs. others. A slightly higher score would require an explicit 'use tv_pause_alerts instead for temporary' clause.

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