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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the action is limited to the current user's monitor, requires an exact ID, and mandates a Full Access MCP token and eligible paid plan. This gives the agent the operational constraints needed beyond the annotation alone.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The core action, scope, and prerequisites are front-loaded, making the description easy to parse quickly.

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 single-parameter destructive tool, the description covers the action, ownership scope, ID requirement, and access prerequisites. Nothing essential is missing: the destructive nature is already annotated, and there is no complex output schema to document.

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 schema already documents monitor_id as required and notes that names are not accepted. The description adds semantic value by emphasizing 'exact monitor ID' and 'owned by the current user', reinforcing safety and ownership constraints that are not fully explicit in 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Delete'), a clear resource ('a monitor'), and important scoping constraints ('owned by the current user', 'by exact monitor ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete-notification-channel and update-monitor.

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?

The description conveys the context for use: deletion is scoped to the current user's monitor and requires an exact ID, plus a Full Access token and paid plan. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives such as update-monitor or pause-monitor, leaving some routing to inference.

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