aiwatcher_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 behavioral traits. It does not mention that deletion is permanent, what cascading effects might occur (e.g., removing prompts/settings), or any authorization requirements. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb. It earns its place but is slightly vague with 'AI monitoring' instead of 'monitor' or 'AI Search Watcher monitor.'

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 delete tool, the description provides the core purpose and the schema covers parameters. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., irreversibility, effects on related data) and does not mention any return value or error conditions, which would be valuable for an agent.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters; it does not clarify the 'id' format or any relationships between the 'body' and 'query' parameters beyond what the schema already states.

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 'Delete AI monitoring for a brand' clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (AI monitoring monitor). It distinguishes from sibling tools like aiwatcher_create_monitor and aiwatcher_update_monitor_settings by explicitly naming the deletion operation.

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?

Usage is implied: this is the tool to call when a monitor should be removed. However, no explicit guidance is given about when not to use it or alternatives (though no direct alternative exists). It lacks context on prerequisites like whether the monitor must exist.

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