delete_alert_rule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes an alert rule, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't specify critical details like required permissions, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, error conditions (e.g., invalid UID), or side effects. This is inadequate for a destructive operation.

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 a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient. Every word earns its place, achieving maximum clarity in minimal space.

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 tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., permanence, permissions), parameter guidance, and usage context. While concise, it doesn't provide enough information for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions the 'uid' parameter but provides no semantic context beyond 'by UID'—no explanation of what a UID is, how to obtain it, format expectations, or examples. This leaves the single required parameter poorly understood despite the description's attempt to reference it.

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 the action ('Delete') and resource ('an alert rule by UID'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_alert_rule' and 'update_alert_rule' by specifying deletion, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other deletion tools like 'delete_dashboard' beyond the resource type.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the UID from 'get_alert_rule' or 'list_alert_rules'), when deletion is appropriate, or what happens after deletion (e.g., irreversibility). This leaves the agent without context for proper tool selection.

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