Delete Kpi Alert Rule

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this permanently removes something and repeated calls are safe. The description adds no behavior beyond that — no note on irreversibility, permission requirements, or what happens to alerts already fired under the rule. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate but thin.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource scoping first and the discovery hint in a compact parenthetical. Nothing is wasted and nothing needs reordering.

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?

A simple two-parameter delete with full schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema, so the description needn't explain return values. The only real gap is the absence of any explicit warning about irreversibility, which the destructiveHint annotation partially compensates for.

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% for both required parameters, so the schema already explains project_id and alert_rule_id. The description only restates the resource being deleted and adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the get_project_kpis pointer. 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?

Names a specific verb ('Delete') and precise resource ('one of a project's KPI alert rules'), scoping it to a single project and a single rule. The parenthetical pointing at get_project_kpis makes it trivially distinguishable from sibling mutation tools like set_kpi_alert_rule.

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?

Provides concrete guidance on where the alert_rule_id comes from ('get_project_kpis lists them'), which is the main prerequisite for calling this tool. It stops short of stating exclusions or preconditions such as confirming the rule is not in active use, but the operational path is clear.

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