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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds what annotations cannot: exactly what is destroyed (check history plus status-page presence), that the action is irreversible, and that the agent must echo the monitor name and URL and seek user confirmation first. It also states the return payload ('removed' with the id).

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the destructive scope, then the alternative, then the irreversibility/confirmation requirement, then the return value. Every clause carries distinct decision-relevant information 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description discloses the return value, the destruction scope, the irreversibility, the safer sibling, and the pre-call confirmation requirement. For a single-parameter destructive tool this covers everything an agent needs to invoke it safely.

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% and the single 'id' parameter is already documented as coming from listar_monitores, which the description repeats verbatim. The added confirmation workflow (repeat name and URL) is process guidance rather than new parameter semantics, so this sits at the high-coverage baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Apaga um monitor de vez') and immediately scopes it against the sibling 'pausar_monitor', so an agent can distinguish a permanent delete from a temporary pause without opening either schema. It also names the side effects (check history gone, service removed from the status page) that define the operation.

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?

Explicitly gives the when ('Use só quando o usuário pedir pra remover'), the when-not with the concrete alternative for temporary stops ('deploy, manutenção, use pausar_monitor, que guarda o histórico'), and a required confirmation procedure before invoking. Nothing is left to inference.

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