monitors_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is free, restricted to the caller's own monitors, and does not delete past check history—valuable behavioral traits beyond the schema. It does not mention irreversibility, but for a simple one-parameter delete tool the key side-effect boundary is covered.

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 front-load the core action and then add the most decision-relevant details: ownership, cost, and the history side effect. Every sentence earns its place, with no repetition or 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 delete operation with no output schema, the description covers the action, ownership restriction, cost, and the main side-effect boundary. It could briefly state success/error behavior, but the essential invocation context is present for a straightforward destructive tool.

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 description coverage is 100%—the 'id' parameter is already documented as 'Monitor id'. The description adds ownership context (only the caller's own monitor can be deleted) but provides no additional id format, sourcing, or validation details, so the schema is doing the heavy lifting. 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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('website-change monitor'), states ownership ('caller's own monitors'), and adds a clear non-effect ('does not delete its past check history'). Across the monitors_* sibling family (create/get/update/list/checks), 'delete' unambiguously distinguishes this tool's purpose.

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 provides clear context for when to call: to remove one of the caller's own website-change monitors. It also notes the call is free and does not remove check history, setting accurate expectations. It stops short of a 5 because it does not explicitly name alternatives like 'use monitors_update to modify settings' or state other exclusion conditions.

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