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

It adds context not present in annotations: resuming preserves the existing expiry and total budget, and can optionally replace delegation. However, it does not disclose the state-change side effects, what happens if the monitor is already running, or any permission/return behavior; annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false.

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 a single sentence with no filler, so it is concise. But it is so sparse that it sacrifices clarity, e.g., 'Resume within' doesn't state the object, and the constraints are crammed into an awkward phrase rather than structured.

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 mutating tool with no output schema and no per-parameter documentation, the description leaves key decision data missing: how to identify the monitor (id), the effect of delegation_id, and what a successful resume returns or changes. It is not complete enough for an agent to call it reliably.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description needed to explain both parameters. 'optionally replacing delegation' hints at delegation_id, but id is entirely unexplained and the relationship between expiry, budget, and the parameters is not specified.

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 verb 'Resume' plus the tool name identifies the action of resuming a monitor, and the phrase 'within the existing expiry and total budget' narrows the semantics to a constrained restart rather than a fresh monitor. It is broadly distinguishable from pause_monitor, but it never explicitly says 'resume a monitor' or identifies what is being resumed, leaving mild ambiguity.

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 gives no indication of when to use resume_monitor versus alternatives such as pause_monitor or get_monitor. There is no explicit condition or prerequisite (e.g., 'use after pause_monitor') and no mention of when not to use it.

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