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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds important context beyond that: deletion includes all monitor history and is irreversible. It also contrasts this with pause_monitor, which stops alerts without data loss.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the destructive action and followed by the critical irreversibility warning and alternative. Every sentence carries necessary 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?

For a simple destructive delete tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what is deleted, that it cannot be undone, and the safer alternative. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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?

There is only one parameter, and the schema fully documents it as the monitor id. The description does not add further parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given 100% 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 states a specific verb and resource: delete a monitor. It also clarifies the scope by noting that all history is removed, and it distinguishes the tool from pause_monitor, which preserves history.

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?

It explicitly warns that the action cannot be undone and names pause_monitor as the safer alternative when the goal is only to stop alerts. This gives an agent clear guidance on when to choose delete versus pause.

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