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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description still adds real information: the delete cascades to found videos, checking stops, credit spend stops, it is irreversible, and it costs nothing. That is exactly the beyond-annotation context an agent needs before a destructive write.

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 short sentences ordered by importance: what it does, what it affects, that it is irreversible with a confirm instruction, and the cost. The clipped 'Free.' reads oddly but still carries useful billing information.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation. For a single-parameter destructive tool, the description covers consequence, reversibility, cost, and the confirmation requirement — nothing an agent needs 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?

One parameter at 100% schema coverage, so the schema already explains that monitor_id is a mon_… id sourced from list_monitors or create_monitor. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable at full coverage but no better than 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 ('Delete a monitor') and immediately scopes the blast radius ('and the new videos it has found'). No sibling tool performs deletion, so the action is unambiguous within the toolset.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition — 'This cannot be undone: confirm with the user first' — which tells the agent to gate the call on user consent. It doesn't name alternatives (e.g., pausing or leaving the monitor idle), but there is no sibling that offers that, so the practical gap is small.

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