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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds real context beyond them: the required auth level ('write scope or higher'), exactly what is destroyed (routing for one event type, alerts going nowhere), and what is explicitly left untouched (every other event type's routing). It also documents the failure response text, which annotations cannot convey.

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 dense sentences with no filler, each carrying distinct information (auth, effect, alternative, error). It is slightly back-loaded: the leading permission note delays the core purpose statement, which would be stronger front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description covers auth requirements, the exact destructive scope, the unaffected state, the alternative tool, and the error surface. Combined with annotations covering idempotency, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and 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 description coverage is 100% and the event_type enum is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description does add semantics by framing the pair as the monitor/event-type key into a routing mapping and by explaining what a missing route means, but it adds no format or value-level detail beyond 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?

States a specific verb and resource with precise scope: 'Stops routing one event type of a monitor to any destination.' It clearly distinguishes itself from set_route by contrasting scope (whole event type vs. a single destination), so an agent can select it without opening the sibling 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?

Names the alternative explicitly ('set_route with the remaining ids drops a single destination instead') and describes the no-op/error condition ('An event type with no routing answers "route not found"'). It lacks an explicit when-to-use scenario (e.g., permanently stop alerting for an event type), but the routing between the two tools is unambiguous.

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