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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses that running stops immediately, that deletion is soft, that data is retained for 30 days, and only then permanently removed. This is exactly the recovery/retention context an agent needs before a destructive call.

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, front-loaded with the action, then the immediate behavioral effect, then the retention lifecycle. Every sentence adds a distinct fact 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?

The tool is simple (one required param, no output schema) and the annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the one thing needed and missing elsewhere: the soft-delete lifecycle and 30-day recovery window.

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% for the single monitor_id parameter, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is the expected baseline when coverage is complete.

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 ('Delete a monitor') in the first two words, distinguishing it cleanly from update-monitor-tool and the other delete-*-tool siblings. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the delete verb and the destructive consequence, but the description never states when to reach for this tool versus alternatives like update-monitor-tool or list-monitors-tool, nor any prerequisites. Minimum viable guidance with a clear gap.

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