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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description specifies exactly what gets destroyed (Incidents, status-page membership) and what survives (the Script). This is valuable behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide, and it does not contradict the annotations.

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 sentences, each with a distinct job: state the action, list side effects, point to the alternative. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 destructive delete tool with a simple schema, the description covers the key behavioral concerns: permanent deletion, cascading removal, retention of the Script, and the safer alternative. It does not mention success/failure response semantics, and there is no output schema to cover that gap, so a small omission remains.

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 burden of explaining parameters. It only says 'from a project,' which weakly maps to projectId and monitorId, but it provides no additional detail about formats, relationships, or required preconditions. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter names already visible in the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a Monitor from a project.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling disable_monitor by explicitly framing deletion as permanent removal and naming the alternative. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 final sentence is an explicit when-not-to-use rule: 'To stop a Monitor running without losing it, use disable_monitor instead.' This gives the agent a clear decision boundary between delete_monitor and its closest sibling, with no inference required.

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