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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: partial-update semantics, that section: null removes the service from a section, that supplying section on a private monitor publishes it to the status page, and that a new URL passes the same validation as criar_monitor requiring confirmar: true on url_failing.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core mutation and partial-update rule come first, followed by edge cases and the sibling routing. Every sentence carries information, though the section/publishing rules are packed tightly enough to require careful reading.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the partial-update contract, the section null/publish semantics, the validation dependency on criar_monitor, and the sibling scope. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 high (83%) so the schema does much of the work, but the description adds meaning not stated in the schema: the null semantics for section and the publishing side effect on private monitors, plus the interaction of confirmar with url_failing. It does not add anything for intervalMin beyond what the schema already lists.

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 (altera) and resource (monitor) and enumerates the mutable fields (nome, URL, intervalo, seção), so the agent immediately knows what the tool targets. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling estruturar_pagina, which owns whole-page edits.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use context (only sent fields change) and names the alternative (estruturar_pagina) with the condition that selects it (multi-section, ordering, page removal). It also explains the specific edge case of section: null.

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