Delete Monitor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly says 'Permanently deletes' and 'This action cannot be undone,' effectively conveys irreversibility and destruction. It also mentions the side effect of deleting heartbeat history. This is strong transparency, though it does not cover every potential side effect (e.g., cascading deletion of associated resources).

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 two short sentences with no redundant phrasing. It conveys the action, the irreversible effect, and the scope in a minimal, front-loaded manner. Every word adds value.

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 delete operation with one parameter and an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It states what is deleted (monitor and heartbeat history) and the permanence. It does not mention any preconditions (e.g., monitor must exist) or authentication requirements, but these are often implied. Given the tool's simplicity and full schema coverage, the description is adequate, though it could add a note about the necessity of a valid monitorID.

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% (monitorID), and the schema already describes the parameter as 'The ID of the monitor to delete.' The description adds the context that it deletes heartbeat history, but does not elaborate on the parameter's type, constraints, or format beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 action: 'Permanently deletes a monitor and all its heartbeat history.' It specifies the resource (monitor) and distinguishes from sibling tools like deleteNotification and deleteTag. The verb 'deletes' is explicit and the scope (heartbeat history) adds precision.

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 purpose is clear, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pauseMonitor or updateMonitor. The irreversible nature is noted, but no recommendation or exclusion is given. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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