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

Annotations (readOnlyHint:false, destructiveHint:false) already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation, but the description adds no behavioral context. It fails to disclose that updates may be partial, that the check type is immutable (as hinted only in the schema), or any side effects such as webhook or schedule changes.

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 extremely short, but it is under-specification rather than conciseness. It is a single sentence that merely restates the tool name and carries no informative content, failing to earn its place.

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?

This is a complex mutation tool with a deeply nested request body (checks, target, webhook, schedule) and no output schema. The description is completely inadequate: it provides no context about required fields, update semantics, return values, or how this tool relates to its many siblings.

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 description does not mention any parameter or supported field (name, checks, target, webhook, schedule). With schema description coverage at 50%, the description should compensate for undocumented parameters, but it adds nothing beyond the tool name.

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 'Update a monitor' is a direct restatement of the tool name 'monitors-update' — a tautology. It provides no specific scope (e.g., which fields are updatable, whether it's partial or full update) and does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'monitors-update_action' or 'monitors-pause'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this updates monitor configuration while 'monitors-update_action' updates actions, or that creating/pausing/resuming monitors are handled by other tools. The description gives no contextual prerequisites or exclusions.

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