Stop polling for deleted host

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the contextual condition 'after it has been deleted' but does not disclose side effects, failure modes, or prerequisites beyond that. It neither contradicts the annotations nor significantly extends the behavioral picture.

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 short, but the first sentence is nearly identical to the title, creating redundancy. The second sentence adds a bit of context ('specific host', 'after it has been deleted'), yet the overall text contains unnecessary repetition. It is not verbose, but it is not efficiently front-loaded either.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description should at least confirm that hostId is required and explain what happens if it is missing or if the host is not actually deleted. It does not address requiredness, error cases, or how to obtain the hostId. The description leaves the agent with gaps about the tool's invocation contract.

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 has 0% description coverage and only one parameter, hostId. The description vaguely refers to 'a specific host' but never explicitly ties this to hostId, does not mention that hostId identifies the deleted host, and does not clarify why it is not marked required. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema-level parameter documentation.

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 operation: stopping polling for a specific deleted host. It distinguishes this from global counterparts like termix_metrics_stop_metrics_collection and the opposite termix_metrics_start_polling_updated_host by specifying 'specific host' and 'after it has been deleted'. It stops short of naming siblings explicitly, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 explicitly says 'after it has been deleted', providing a clear condition for when this tool should be used. It does not, however, mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks the explicit exclusions and sibling-routing that would earn a 5.

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