Delete a monitor

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description goes well beyond that, disclosing the downstream consequences (claimed incidents retain their link, new events fall through to the next matching monitor or built-in grouping rules) and a hard auth constraint (OAuth-only; refused with an Orchestra API key). This is exactly the extra context an agent needs before a destructive call.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: action first, then side effects, then the auth gate. Nothing is redundant and the critical constraint is not buried.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return/effect burden and does so: it explains the blast radius of the delete and the credential requirement. For a two-parameter destructive tool with full schema coverage, 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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters (monitor_id, X-Orchestra-Account-Id) are fully documented in the schema, including the account-scoping nuance. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Delete a monitor') that unambiguously distinguishes it from the other monitor siblings (create_monitor, update_monitor, get_monitor, list_monitors, reorder_monitors). An agent can select it 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?

The description gives useful context about what deletion entails and its auth requirement, but never states when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., temporarily disabling via update_monitor, or how it relates to reorder_monitors). Usage is implied rather than guided.

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