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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds what those hints cannot: the exact consequence ('its alerts for that event go nowhere'), the scope limit (only that event type changes), the required write scope, and the error response for an unrouted event type. This is the blast-radius detail 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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the permission requirement, then the effect, the alternative, and the error case — no filler. Slightly dense with semicolons, but every clause earns its place.

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 two-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers authorization, effect, scope of change, idempotency implication, the sibling alternative, and the failure message. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with the event_type enum fully enumerated and monitor_id documented as a UUID, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description only reinforces that event_type selects a single routing slot and does not add format or edge-case guidance 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 object — stops routing one event type of a monitor to any destination — and immediately delimits the blast radius ('every other event type's routing is unchanged'). This lets an agent distinguish it from set_route and delete_destination without opening either 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 path explicitly: set_route with the remaining ids drops a single destination instead, and the 'route not found' case tells the agent what happens when there is nothing to delete. It stops short of stating when the agent should not call this at all, but the routing decision against set_route is clear.

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