create_monitorAuthenticated smry product action. Create a persistent page-change monitor that delivers future updates into the user's followed sources.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| title | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it requires authentication, is persistent, and has the ongoing side effect of delivering updates into followed sources. No contradiction with annotations.
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 terse sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. Every phrase ('persistent', 'page-change', 'followed sources') adds meaning, and there is no repetition of schema details.
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 simple 2-parameter creation tool, the description covers the main effect and product context, and annotations cover safety and idempotency. However, there is no output schema and the description does not say what a successful call returns (e.g., a monitor identifier), and 'followed sources' is left undefined.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the optional title parameter at all. 'Web page' only indirectly maps to url, leaving the agent to infer url format and title semantics entirely from the schema. The description does not compensate for the low 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?
Description uses a specific verb ('Create') and names a concrete resource ('persistent page-change monitor') with a clear effect ('delivers future updates into the user's followed sources'). This clearly distinguishes it from read/search siblings like open_web_pages or search_web.
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 signals a clear use case: persistent monitoring of a web page for changes. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives such as follow_feeds, nor does it state exclusions or 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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a largely distinct job: discovery (search_feeds, search_web), content retrieval/search within URLs (get_article, search_article), and library/feed management (save_article, follow_feeds, update_library_item, create_monitor). The only mild overlap is get_article vs open_web_pages, both of which extract content from public URLs, but their different output styles and intended use cases keep them mostly separate.
All nine tool names follow a consistent imperative verb + object pattern in snake_case: create_monitor, follow_feeds, get_article, open_web_pages, save_article, search_article, search_feeds, search_web, update_library_item. There are no mixed conventions, vague verbs, or surprising abbreviations.
Nine tools is well-scoped for a reading and summarization product: three search/discovery tools, three content-retrieval tools, and three library/feed management tools. Each tool contributes a distinct workflow step and the set avoids bloat.
The set covers discovery, fetching and searching content, saving to a library, following feeds, monitoring page changes, and updating library items. However, there are no removal operations (unfollow feed, delete monitor, delete library item) and no direct way to list or read the user's saved library or followed sources, creating noticeable lifecycle gaps.