spidra_delete_monitor

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known; the description still adds genuine value by specifying that check history is destroyed along with the monitor and by requiring user confirmation. It stops short of stating irreversibility or what happens when the monitorId does not exist, so it is not a 5.

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, front-loaded with the destructive scope, then the safer alternative, then the confirmation requirement. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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 delete with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what is destroyed, the non-destructive alternative, and the confirmation requirement.

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 tool has a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('The monitor's id'), so the schema already carries the meaning. The description adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance for monitorId, making this the baseline 3.

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 and resource ('Delete a monitor') plus the exact scope of what is removed ('its check history'), which lets an agent distinguish it from spidra_update_monitor without reading 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?

Explicitly names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it ('To stop checks but keep the history, pause it with spidra_update_monitor instead'), and adds a procedural guardrail ('Confirm with the user before deleting'). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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