delete_alert_rule

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is partly covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: it runs as a preview requiring a confirm_action follow-up and existing alerts remain in the feed (data preserved, not cascaded). This is real value beyond the structured hints, though reversibility/idempotency consequences could be stated slightly more explicitly.

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?

Three short sentences with the most important constraint ('PREVIEW ONLY') front-loaded, followed by side-effect and workflow notes. No filler; every clause carries decision-relevant information.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers workflow (preview + confirm), side effects (alerts retained), reversibility (create_alert_rule re-enables), and an approval requirement. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 0% and the single 'type' parameter is an undocumented enum of 15 rule types. The description compensates by explaining that the values are 'the same rule names as create_alert_rule', which gives the field meaning and a source of truth, though it does not characterize the enum values themselves.

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 action on a specific resource ('turn an alert rule off') and explicitly reconciles it with the misleading name 'delete' by noting the rule is only deactivated. It also cross-references create_alert_rule for rule-name semantics, letting an agent place it precisely among siblings.

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 an explicit operating procedure: this is PREVIEW ONLY, apply with confirm_action after user approval, and create_alert_rule is the inverse operation. Both the when and the how (approval-gated second step) are spelled out rather than left to inference.

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