delete_monitor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly discloses the irreversible nature of the action and that it also deletes associated alerts, which goes beyond the basic delete action. However, it doesn't cover permission requirements or error behavior, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 and immediately states the core action, followed by a crucial warning. There is no fluff or repetition; every word adds value. This is an exemplar of concise, front-loaded writing.

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 with one parameter and no annotations, the description sufficiently covers the main side effect (associated alerts) and the irreversible nature. While it doesn't address edge cases like non-existent monitors or permission requirements, the presence of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation make this adequately complete.

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% for the single parameter (monitor_id), so the schema already fully documents what the parameter means. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, which aligns with the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 tool's action: 'Delete a monitor and all its associated alerts.' The verb 'delete' and the resource 'monitor' are specific, and the mention of associated alerts distinguishes this from sibling tools like enable/disable/get. It is immediately obvious what the tool does.

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 usage (you use this to delete a monitor), but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like disable_monitor, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. With no explicit guidance, the usage context is only inferred from the action itself.

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