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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing concrete side effects: history is preserved, checking stops, no notifications are sent, a plan slot is freed, and the status page shows 'Pausado'. These are exactly the behavioral details an agent needs and are not derivable from destructiveHint=false alone.

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 tight sentences with the core effect front-loaded and the sibling reference last. Every clause carries distinct information with no padding.

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-change tool with no output schema, the description covers all relevant effects (history retention, notification suppression, plan-limit impact, status-page state) and the resume counterpart, leaving nothing an agent needs unaddressed.

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?

Only one parameter (id) and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage, including where to obtain the value (campo `id` de listar_monitores). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, 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+resource ('Pausa um monitor') and immediately distinguishes it from the sibling retomar_monitor by naming the counterpart action (resume checking). An agent can tell this apart from retomar_monitor and remover_monitor without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative retomar_monitor and its opposite effect, giving clear context for choosing between the two pause/resume tools. It stops short of stating prerequisites or when-not to use it (e.g. versus removing), so it is clear but not fully exhaustive.

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