Delete monitor

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them by enumerating the exact cascade: pings, run steps, traces, incidents, routes, alert templates, assertions, delivery history, plus bound ingest keys that stop working. That is precisely the 'what gets destroyed' context an agent needs before calling a destructive tool.

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?

A single dense sentence pair with zero filler; the permission prerequisite and irreversibility warning are front-loaded, and the cascade list is the longest part because it carries the most decision value.

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 single-param destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers permissions, reversibility, and full cascade impact, while annotations cover the safety profile. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented as 'Monitor UUID.' The description only restates 'by UUID,' adding no format, source, or lookup guidance beyond the schema - 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Permanently deletes a monitor by UUID') with the scope of the operation made explicit. This cleanly separates it from the other delete_* siblings (delete_agent, delete_route, delete_destination, delete_status_page) without needing to name them.

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?

Gives the prerequisite ('Requires the write scope or higher') and a strong irreversibility warning, which implies caution before use. However, it never addresses the obvious less-destructive alternatives in the sibling set - pause_monitor, snooze_monitor, or update_monitor - which an agent should consider before a permanent delete.

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