delete_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the non-destructive nature ('soft-delete'), the immediate effect, and that historical results are retained. It does not mention authorization, reversibility, or nonexistent identifiers, but for a single-parameter delete operation it is transparent.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The action and key behavioral consequence are front-loaded, and every clause adds information.

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, this description gives the caller all necessary behavioral context: what the tool deletes, how to identify the check, what happens immediately, and what persists afterward. Nothing essential is missing.

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 documents the identifier parameter with complete coverage and examples, so the description adds little beyond restating 'by UID or slug'. Baseline 3 applies because the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 ('soft-delete') with a clear resource ('monitoring check') and identifiers ('by UID or slug'), distinguishing it from sibling delete tools for status pages and maintenance windows. It also adds what happens when deleted, so there is no ambiguity.

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 implies when to use it (delete/stop a check) and clarifies a key effect ('stops running immediately'), but it does not explicitly contrast this with alternatives such as update_check or explain when not to use it. The usage context is clear enough, but the guidance is not explicit.

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