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

The description goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by specifying exactly what is destroyed (check history, events, rollups) and stating that the action cannot be undone. This provides valuable behavioral context that helps the agent understand the full impact of the operation.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Permanently delete a monitor') and then provides essential consequences. Every word adds value, with no redundancy.

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, one-parameter destructive tool, the description fully covers the action, its consequences, and irreversibility. The annotation confirms the destructive nature, and the schema covers the parameter. No additional context is needed for an agent to use it correctly.

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 input schema already fully describes the only parameter (id) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning about the id parameter, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 deletes a monitor permanently, with a specific verb and resource. It also details what is removed (check history, events, rollups) and emphasizes irreversibility, distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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?

Usage context is implied: this is the tool to permanently remove a monitor. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like update_monitor, or any warning to consider backups (beyond noting irreversibility). The purpose is clear enough that a user can infer when to use it, but the guidance is not explicit.

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