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

Annotations only mark idempotence and non-read-only; the description adds the operational effects: scheduled Cycles stop, fuel burn stops, open Incidents close, and the returned summary contains the Dashboard link for re-enabling. This goes well beyond the structured hints and matches the idempotentHint.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the action and then explaining consequences and constraints. Every clause adds distinct information; there is no fluff.

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?

The description covers the operation's non-obvious effects and tells the agent what the returned summary carries (the re-enable link), partially compensating for the missing output schema. It does not describe the full return shape or error conditions, so it is not fully complete, but for a simple idempotent disable action the essentials are present.

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 0%, and the description does not explain `projectId` or `monitorId` beyond the word 'Monitor.' The parameter names are fairly self-evident, but with no descriptions in the schema and no parameter explanations in the text, the agent gets no extra semantic aid for constructing a valid request.

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 opening phrase 'Disable a Monitor' pairs a specific verb with a resource, and the description adds precise consequences: 'stopping its scheduled Cycles and their fuel burn' and 'closes the Monitor's open Incidents.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by declaring it 'the only enabled-state transition this surface offers,' so it is clearly not a generic update or delete.

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 an explicit when-not: 're-enabling is the user's act in the Dashboard,' telling agents not to expect an API re-enable via this or any sibling. 'The only enabled-state transition this surface offers' clarifies that this is the single place to perform disabling, making the use case unambiguous.

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