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

Goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by detailing what is destroyed (entire check history, incidents, statistics), explicitly stating irreversibility and lack of trash, and adding a safety guideline to confirm. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. All information is essential, front-loaded with the core purpose and then critical caveats.

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 action, the description covers consequences, confirmation requirement, and alternative tool. With output schema present and only one fully-described parameter, it is complete.

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?

The id parameter is fully described in the schema (with 'Monitor id to delete, as returned by list_monitors. Deletion is irreversible.'), and the tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond that. Baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool 'Permanently delete a monitor' and specifies what is deleted (check history, incidents, statistics), distinguishing it from sibling tools like pause_monitor which only temporarily stop checking.

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?

Explicitly says to prefer pause_monitor when only temporary stopping is intended, and instructs to confirm with the user before calling, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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