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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive operation in an open-world context. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond them — that resuming is gated by the plan's active-monitor limit — but says nothing about what happens if the monitor is not paused or what error surfaces when the limit is exceeded.

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 short sentences, action first, constraint second. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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 single-parameter state-toggle tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action and the main external constraint. Only the failure behavior (already-running monitor, limit exceeded) is left unstated.

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 100% and the uuid property already documents its own provenance (from list_monitors). The description adds no extra meaning about the identifier, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ("Resume a paused monitor") with the precondition baked in. It is clearly the inverse of pause_monitor among the siblings, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

"Resume a paused monitor" implies the monitor must currently be paused, and the plan-limit clause signals a failure condition. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over pause_monitor/run_monitor, nor what to do when the limit is hit.

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