reddit_monitor_remove

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint/readOnlyHint annotations by disclosing that there is no undo, that matching stops immediately, that the slot is freed for reuse, that the monitor disappears from reddit_monitor_list, that past deliveries are NOT erased and remain queryable forever, and the 404 monitor_not_found error condition. This is exactly the kind of side-effect and downstream-state detail a destructive tool needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the single-sentence action ('Delete a monitor'), followed by consequence sentences that each carry distinct information (undo, slot, list visibility, data retention, error case). No filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers reversibility, immediate effects, downstream data retention, cross-tool visibility, and the error path. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly or predict its side effects 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%, so the id parameter is already documented (source: add response or list). The description adds value by specifying the failure semantics of the id ('404 monitor_not_found if the id does not exist or is not yours'), clarifying ownership scoping that the schema does not convey.

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 ('Delete a monitor') with a clearly named resource and immediately distinguishes its effect from siblings by calling out reddit_monitor_list (slot disappears) and reddit_monitor_deliveries (past data persists). An agent can tell this apart from reddit_monitor_update or reddit_monitor_add without opening any 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 richly describes the consequences of deleting but never states when to choose this over an alternative such as reddit_monitor_update (e.g. to pause rather than remove). Usage is implied by the delete semantics and the 'no undo' framing, so it lands at minimum-viable-plus rather than explicit guidance.

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