Cancel monitor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context ('Settled monitors are left untouched'), but lacks details about reversibility, state changes after cancellation, permission requirements, or why a reason parameter exists. This is a moderate level of transparency.

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 two sentences long, directly front-loaded with the core action, and contains no filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the simple tool but zero schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient for full context. It covers the main action but omits parameter meaning, behavioral consequences, and how it fits with sibling tools. The missing information leaves an agent guessing about important invocation details.

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 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the two parameters (id, reason). It does not identify that id likely refers to the monitor identifier or what reason is used for. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 action: 'Stop an active monitor.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (create, wait, run, status) by focusing on cancellation. The additional note about settled monitors clarifies the exact scope of the 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?

The description implies the tool should be used when an active monitor needs to be stopped, and clarifies that settled monitors are not affected. However, it does not explicitly address alternatives or state when not to use this tool, such as checking status first via monitor_status.

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