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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the equivalence to update_monitor with paused=false, but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as failure conditions or side effects beyond what annotations provide.

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 two short sentences with no redundant wording. The core action is front-loaded, and the clarifying alternative is stated efficiently.

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 simple one-parameter tool with annotations covering idempotency and safety, the description is adequately complete. It explains the action and the relationship to update_monitor, though it does not describe return values or error behavior, which are not critical for this simple operation.

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 the uuid parameter already documented as 'UUID of the monitor to resume.' The description adds the paused=false equivalence, which slightly clarifies intent, but it does not significantly extend the parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the action ('Resume a paused monitor') with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from update_monitor by explicitly noting the equivalence with paused=false, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to resume a paused monitor. It names the alternative update_monitor and explains the relationship, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or enumerate exclusions.

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