Delete monitor

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new context: the deletion is permanent, irreversible, and cascades to snapshots and changes — the cascade is the key operational fact not in the annotations. It stops short of mentioning auth requirements or confirmation behavior.

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 sentences, no filler. The irreversible cascade is stated first and the safer alternative second, which is the correct ordering for a destructive action.

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-parameter destructive tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, everything an agent needs is present: what is destroyed, that it cannot be undone, and the recommended non-destructive path. Nothing material 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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents its source ("Monitor id from list_monitors or list_competitors"). The description adds no further meaning about the identifier, so baseline 3 applies — the schema does all the work here.

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 delete one monitor") and adds the cascade scope ("with its snapshots and changes"), which distinguishes it from sibling deletes like delete_competitor and from update_monitor. An agent can identify the operation and its blast radius without opening the schema.

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?

"To stop checks and keep history, use update_monitor with status paused" names the alternative tool, the exact parameter value, and the condition under which it should be preferred. Combined with "Cannot be undone," the agent has both a routing rule and a decision constraint.

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