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

Although annotations already mark the tool as destructive, the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond them: exactly what is deleted, what is retained, that the action is irreversible, and the specific refusal condition. This is the kind of context an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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 effect and deletion scope, then covers irreversibility, an error condition, and an alternative. Every sentence contributes useful 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?

Given a single required parameter, full schema coverage, destructive annotations, and an output schema, the description supplies all missing operational context. It explains impact, irreversibility, refusal behavior, and an alternative, so an agent can call 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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents the single parameter as the check id from list_monitors. The description does not add syntax or lookup detail beyond that, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries parameter semantics.

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: stopping a weekly site check. It also defines the scope precisely by saying every run and its pages, images, and files are deleted while the underlying crawl remains. This distinguishes it from adjacent monitor and scan operations without requiring the schemas to be opened.

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?

The description gives explicit usage constraints: only use it when the person asked for it, there is no undo, and a run still in progress is refused with scan_in_progress. It also names the alternative path for stopping only emails, which is a clear when-not-to-use-this case.

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