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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds a minor clarification ('Cannot delete') and lists some settings, but does not disclose partial-update semantics or other behavioral nuances. This is sufficient but not rich.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and ends with a relevant limitation. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

While the schema and annotations cover most details, the description omits whether the tool performs a partial update (only provided fields) or a full replacement. This is a significant gap given 10 optional parameters. The output schema exists, so return values don't need explanation, but this key behavioral detail is missing.

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 100%, with each parameter already described in detail. The description only lists a few parameter names without adding semantic meaning beyond the schema, so it does not elevate the baseline.

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 uses the specific verb 'Update' and identifies the resource as 'a monitor's settings', listing example fields like name, url, interval, inverted. The note 'Cannot delete' clearly distinguishes this tool from deletion operations and from sibling tools like create_monitor, pause_monitor, and resume_monitor.

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 clearly implies this tool is for modifying existing monitor settings, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., create_monitor for new monitors) or provide prerequisites. The 'Cannot delete' is an exclusion but not a full alternative recommendation.

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