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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, so the description goes beyond them with real consequences: check stops immediately, incidents resolved, scheduling jobs removed, historical results kept, tunneling checks refused. Auth requirements (mcp scope, user role, read tokens refused) are also disclosed. It stops short of describing irreversibility or error shapes, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 tight sentences: effect first, then side effects and exclusion, then the alternative and the auth/return contract. No filler and no repetition of the title or annotations.

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?

A destructive single-parameter tool with annotations and an output schema, and the description still covers side effects, refusal conditions, the preferred non-destructive alternative, authorization scopes, and the return shape. Nothing an agent needs before calling 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%, and the schema already documents identifier as UID or slug. The description repeats 'by UID or slug' without adding format or resolution rules, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Soft-delete a monitoring check') and immediately scopes the identifier to UID or slug. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like delete_status_page, update_check, and get_check.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative ('use update_check with enabled:false instead') with the condition that selects it (stop without losing it). It also states an exclusion: a check other checks tunnel through is refused.

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