delete_destination

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses critical cascade behavior: deletion removes the destination from every monitor's routing, and event types routed only to this destination silently stop notifying anyone. It also states irreversibility ('This cannot be undone'), adding meaningful context beyond the schema and 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 front-loaded with the core destructive action, then covers consequences, pre-deletion checks, and the temporary alternative. Every sentence contributes essential guidance for a destructive operation, with no filler.

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?

Given the tool's destructive and cascading nature, the description covers permanence, routing impact, silent notification loss, prerequisite checks, and alternative behavior. The absence of an output schema does not create a meaningful gap because the key context an agent needs before invoking deletion is thoroughly explained.

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?

The input schema already fully describes the single id parameter with 100% coverage, including how to obtain it via list_destinations. The description does not add further parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Permanently delete a notification destination (channel).' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like delete_monitor, delete_agent, and set_route by focusing on notification destinations and their routing side effects.

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 explicitly instructs when to avoid deletion: check which monitors route to the destination via get_monitor and reassign those event types first. It also provides the alternative for temporary changes: edit routes with set_route and keep the destination in place.

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