Delete Check

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, indicating the tool is destructive. The description adds 'permanently' to emphasize irreversibility, but does not discuss side effects like impact on incidents or historical data. The behavioral disclosure is adequate given the annotation coverage.

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 redundancy. The first sentence states the core action and permanence; the second provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place. No fluff.

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?

The tool is simple (1 param, output schema exists, annotations present). The description covers purpose and usage, though it could mention potential cascading effects (e.g., deletion of associated incidents). Overall, it is sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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 description does not elaborate on the parameters, but schema coverage is 100% and the schema already provides a clear description for the 'check_id' parameter. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('StillOnline check'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like checks.update or checks.list. The verb is specific and the resource is well-defined.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use only when an endpoint should no longer be monitored.' This directly tells the agent when to invoke the tool. While it does not explicitly list alternatives, the context of destruction and the sibling tools (e.g., checks.update) makes the use case clear.

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