Kooperativa: delete monitor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states the core action ('stop monitoring... delete the monitor') but reveals nothing about permanence, side effects, permissions, or failure behavior. The description is close to repeating the tool name and does not add meaningful behavioral context beyond the literal delete action.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the action ('Stop monitoring...') and the resource ('delete the monitor'). Every word is meaningful; there is no redundancy or 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 with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it names the action, the target, and the identifier. It could improve by mentioning that the monitor ID can be obtained from kooperativa_list_monitors, but this is not essential for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the single 'id' parameter is already clearly documented as 'Monitor ID to delete (UUID).' The description's 'delete the monitor by its ID' simply echoes the schema, adding no additional semantic value. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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-resource pair, 'delete the monitor,' and clearly identifies the target by ID. It also clarifies that deletion stops monitoring, which distinguishes it from creating or listing monitors.

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 the use case: stop monitoring and delete a specific monitor. However, it does not explicitly say to use kooperativa_list_monitors to retrieve the ID first, nor does it contrast with kooperativa_create_monitor or other monitoring-related tools.

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