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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that an in-progress run can still finish and be charged, that history remains readable, that the return value is a monitor with active: false, that stopping an already stopped monitor is idempotent, and that the operation is irreversible. It also covers authentication requirements and that no credits are charged.

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?

Every sentence adds a distinct operational fact: stopping behavior, in-flight run behavior, history retention, return shape, idempotency, irreversibility, and authentication. The main action and immediate consequences are front-loaded, and there is no filler.

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 tool with one required param, no output schema, and meaningful side effects, the description is complete. It explains what happens to scheduled runs, charges, history, and the returned object, and it supplies authentication guidance, so 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 description coverage is 100%, and the sole parameter id is already described as 'The monitor id' in the schema. The description adds only the context that it is one of the user's monitors, which is not enough to raise the score above 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Stop one of your monitors', and clarifies the consequence of no further scheduled runs or charges. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like contrie_monitors or contrie_watch by describing the precise stop behavior and irreversibility.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when the user wants to stop a monitor and avoid future runs and charges. It also warns that a stopped monitor cannot be restarted, which implicitly tells the agent not to use it for temporary pauses, though it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools.

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