Stop monitoring

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by disclosing idempotency ('safe to call even if the site isn't currently tracked'), the return value ('how many monitoring slots are now free'), and a subscription prerequisite with a clear fallback. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage triggers, idempotency, return value, and subscription gating with routing. It is longer than average but dense and front-loaded, with 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?

With one well-documented parameter, destructive annotations, and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to call it correctly: behavior, result, idempotency, and the non-subscriber edge case. The get_sample_audit routing closes the main uncertainty.

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 fully documents the single required domain parameter, so the description adds little parameter-level detail. The surrounding context clarifies that the domain is a monitored site, but this is baseline value given 100% 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Stop ongoing monitoring of a website's AI visibility.' It also positions the tool as the inverse of tracking via trigger phrases like 'stop tracking' and 'unmonitor,' and distinguishes it from monitoring/list/report tools by framing it as removal and slot freeing.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance with quoted user intents and the slot-freeing goal, and routes non-subscribers to get_sample_audit first. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, such as when the user wants to start tracking a new site, though that is inferable from sibling tools.

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