Delete monitor

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description explains the full scope of destruction: entire check history, incidents, and statistics, and emphasizes irreversibility with 'no trash to restore from.' It adds meaningful behavioral context about data wipe and confirmation requirement, exceeding what annotations convey.

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 sentences, each earning its place: a clear action statement, an irreversibility warning, and a usage guideline. Front-loaded with the core action, no filler.

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 simple single-parameter schema with 100% coverage and an existing output schema, the description fully covers all essential contextual aspects: purpose, consequences, alternatives, and user confirmation. Nothing else is needed for careful use.

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 already provides a full description for the only parameter, including the id, source (list_monitors), and irreversibility. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies (schema coverage is 100%).

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 states precisely what the tool does: permanently delete a monitor, including its history, incidents, and statistics. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by noting the preference for pause_monitor when only temporary suspension is needed.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: confirm with the user before calling, and prefer pause_monitor for temporary stopping. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use instructions, naming the alternative tool.

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