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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: monitors are limited to the 'current plan' and, before ownership is proven, are added but do not run on their schedule yet (scheduleStarts). The annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, so this addition is meaningful extra value.

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?

Front-loads the key framing ('The onboarding shortcut'), then the goal list and the critical scheduleStarts caveat. Parenthetical asides add bulk but each carries real information; the sentence flow is compact.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential surprise (monitors exist but don't run pre-ownership) and the plan constraint. It omits what happens to pre-existing monitors and whether the call is additive, but annotations and the goal list fill most of the gaps.

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?

At 50% schema coverage, the description compensates well: it enumerates all goal values and clarifies ambiguous ones ('flows (checkout and sign-in)', 'compliance (law compliance — accessibility today)'). It adds meaning beyond the raw enum, though it doesn't explain siteId at all.

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 action (adds monitors covering chosen goals) and frames itself as 'the onboarding shortcut', which distinguishes it from the sibling add_checks/add_custom_check tools that add individual checks. An agent can tell this is bulk, goal-driven monitor creation without opening the schema.

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 onboarding shortcut' implies the use context is initial setup, but the description never states when to prefer this over add_checks or add_custom_check, nor any exclusions. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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