Remove key/value properties from a JSM alert

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

Beyond the annotations (destructive/idempotent/openWorld), it discloses the async execution model, the exact verification path, that removing a nonexistent key is silently non-erroring (so a receipt proves nothing), and the separate delete:ops-alert:jira-service-management grant. These are precisely the behavioral traits structured fields 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?

Front-loaded with the action, then Args, Returns, an IMPORTANT async warning, and Constraints. Every block earns its place and nothing is padding despite covering several distinct concerns.

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?

Output schema exists, yet the description still adds the async/verification workflow, silent-success caveat, and the required OAuth scope — everything an agent needs to invoke and confirm this destructive, asynchronous tool.

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% and the schema already explains both keys ("Keys, not values") and alert_id ("NOT the short tinyId"). The description restates this same guidance, so it is useful reinforcement but adds no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 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?

Specific verb + resource + scope: "Remove properties from a JSM alert by key." It is unambiguously distinct from the sibling jsm_add_alert_extra_properties and the field-mutating tools, and it clarifies that it operates on property keys, not fields or tags.

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?

Gives concrete operational guidance: it is asynchronous, must be verified via jsm_get_request_status with the returned requestId, and the caller should read the alert back if removal confirmation matters. It never explicitly names a sibling alternative or a when-not-to-use case (e.g., use jsm_update_alert_field for standard fields), so it stops short of 5.

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