delete_monitor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that deletion is permanent, which adds transparency beyond just 'delete'. However, it does not elaborate on side effects (e.g., cascading deletion of related data), authorization requirements, or whether the action can be undone. The word 'permanently' is a positive but minimal addition.

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 very concise: a single 4-word sentence. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource. While it is not verbose, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., adding a note about irreversibility) without losing conciseness. Overall, it earns its space.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It states the permanent deletion but does not explain return values (likely success/error), error conditions, or post-deletion state. For a destructive action, additional context about reversibility and consequences would improve completeness.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of the single parameter ('monitor_id') with a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. According to the rubric, with high schema description coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3, and the description does not exceed it.

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 ('permanently delete') and the resource ('a signal monitor'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_monitor or retry_monitor, which have different purposes. The verb+resource combination leaves no ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_monitor, retry_monitor). It does not mention prerequisites such as having appropriate permissions or ensuring the monitor is no longer needed. The only hint is the word 'permanently', which implies irreversible action, but no explicit when-not-to-use context.

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