Remove key/value properties from a JSM alert

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the action is asynchronous, that a successful receipt does not prove removal, and that missing keys are silently ignored. It also explains the permission distinction between delete:ops-alert and write:ops-alert. These are meaningful behavioral details not available from the schema or annotations.

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 well-structured with a clear first-sentence purpose, Args, Returns, an IMPORTANT async warning, a caveat about receipt semantics, and a constraints/errors section. Every sentence earns its place and the formatting makes the critical warnings easy to scan.

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, asynchronous tool, the description covers everything an agent needs: what to pass, what is returned, how to verify completion, what the semantics of a non-existent key are, and what permission is required. It is self-sufficient for correct invocation and follow-up.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the key semantics ('full alert id not tinyId', 'keys, not values') but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It is accurate but not additive.

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 'Remove properties from a JSM alert by key', a specific verb-plus-resource statement that clearly identifies the operation. It distinguishes this from sibling tools that deal with tags, notes, or adding properties, and the title reinforces the same scope.

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 gives clear operational guidance: the action is asynchronous, must be verified with jsm_get_request_status, and removal of absent keys is not an error. It also states the required delete grant. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like jsm_remove_alert_tags or jsm_add_alert_extra_properties, but the behavior and prerequisites are clear enough for an agent to know when to use it.

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