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

Annotations only provide destructiveHint=true, so the description carries the disclosure burden for what destruction means. It adds irreversibility, impact on live monitoring configuration, the HTTP endpoint, and the return value (the deleted check's last known state). This goes well beyond the annotation.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: the action and permanence, the endpoint mapping, and the return value. Critical warnings are front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the param, explains the danger, gives the HTTP verb/path, and states what the response contains. Nothing an agent needs to invoke 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%, and the schema already describes the uuid parameter as 'The check's UUID to delete.' The description repeats 'by UUID' and adds an endpoint reference, but does not add meaningful new parameter semantics 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 (DELETE), the resource (a check), and the identifier (UUID). It also emphasizes permanence, which distinguishes it from pause_check, resume_check, and update_check even without reading sibling schemas.

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 does not name an explicit alternative, but the strong context 'cannot be undone' and 'MODIFIES live monitoring config' makes it clear this is only for intended permanent deletion, not temporary disabling. This is clear contextual guidance even without explicit when-not statements.

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