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

Annotations cover readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description adds genuine value beyond them: section auto-creation at the end, defaulting to the first section, and the non-destructive guarantee that existing services stay put. This contextualizes the idempotent/non-destructive profile well.

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 compact sentences with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded and the placement behavior is stated in one tight follow-up clause. Every sentence earns 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?

For a mutating tool with no output schema, the essential behavioral context (section handling, non-destructiveness, service types and paused-monitor restriction) is well covered. The only gap is the absence of return-value/response expectations, which is minor for a mutation action.

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 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; all five parameters (uuid, section, services, show_uptime, show_response_times) are already fully documented in the schema itself.

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 ('Show monitors or components on a status page') and clarifies scope with section placement rules. The phrase 'Services already on the page stay where they are' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling remove_status_page_services by emphasizing its additive, non-removing nature.

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?

Implies usage context through behavior details (section creation, first-section default, paused-monitor refusal) but never explicitly says when to use this versus alternatives or names the sibling remove_status_page_services. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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