delete_destination

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

Annotations only signal destructive and idempotent, but the description adds crucial behavior: permanence, removal of the destination from all monitor routing, silent notification loss for exclusively-routed event types, and API key scope requirements. This richly exceeds what the annotations already provide and does not contradict them.

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 and every sentence serves a purpose, covering permission, permanence, side effects, and alternatives. It loses a point for a slight redundancy between 'Permanently delete' and 'This cannot be undone,' and for leading with the API-key prerequisite rather than immediately stating the core action.

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 single-parameter, high-risk delete operation, the description is highly complete: it covers permission, irreversibility, routing consequences, and recommended pre-conditions. It omits the exact success/failure return semantics for deleting a non-existent id, but the idempotentHint annotation partially covers that gap.

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 that id is the destination UUID and tells the user to get it from list_destinations. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond those already encoded in the schema, so the 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Permanently delete a notification destination (channel).' It also distinguishes itself from siblings like delete_agent, delete_monitor, and delete_status_page by clearly targeting destinations, and from set_route by describing its different purpose.

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 gives explicit prerequisites (write-scope API key), warns when not to use deletion, and points to the alternative set_route for temporary changes. It also directs the agent to check monitor routing with get_monitor before proceeding, which is excellent when-to-use guidance.

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