twitter_monitor_delete

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, readOnlyHint), the description adds crucial behavioral context: 'Irreversible' clarifies the permanence, and 'Delivery history referencing this monitor is retained, not cascade-deleted' discloses the exact side-effect on related data. The 'Free per call' note also provides cost transparency. This meaningfully exceeds what annotations already convey.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: action and irreversibility, alternative for future use, and retention of delivery history plus cost. It is tightly written, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains zero 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 simple one-parameter delete operation, this description is complete. It covers the action, irreversibility, relevant side-effect (delivery history retention), and cost. With no output schema required and the schema fully documenting the parameter, there are no significant gaps.

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 already covers the sole parameter 'id' with a description ('The monitor's id, from twitter_monitor_create or twitter_monitor_list'), so the description does not need to add param semantics. The description references 'by id' but adds no new information beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Stop and remove') and resource ('a monitor by id'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning the irreversible nature and referring to twitter_monitor_create as the way to re-create a monitor, making it distinct from update/list/health.

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 guidance on when to use this tool (to stop and remove a monitor) and gives an explicit alternative for the same goal after deletion ('create a new monitor with twitter_monitor_create'). However, it does not mention when not to use it, such as if a temporary pause is needed (which might warrant twitter_monitor_update instead). This slightly limits the guidance.

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