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

The annotations already mark this as destructive and non-idempotent, and the description adds important context beyond them: the deletion is permanent, irreversible, free, and removes everything the monitor collected. It also warns that omitting signal_id may delete all signals of a type.

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 destructive nature and the safer alternative, then follows with the parameter caveats. The repetition of irreversibility is justified for a destructive operation and does not obscure the key instructions.

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 that an output schema and annotations exist, the description supplies all the extra behavioral and parameter context an agent needs to invoke this destructive tool correctly. Nothing essential 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It does so well by explaining the conditional meaning of signal_id for engagement versus job_change/new_post/person_activity signal types and the consequences of omitting it.

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 signal monitor and all collected data. It clearly distinguishes this from the safer alternative by naming update_signal with action pause.

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 tells the agent when to use this tool versus the alternative: if the user might want the monitor back, use update_signal pause instead. It also explains the dangerous omission behavior for signal_id across signal types.

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