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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, but the description adds genuinely new context: the existing recipe is discarded, a new one is AI-generated, and it must be re-approved before the monitor runs again. That explains *what* is destroyed and the follow-up workflow. It stops short of saying whether monitoring pauses in the meantime or whether the edit is reversible.

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 sentences, both load-bearing: the first lists the changeable fields, the second discloses the destructive/approval consequence. Front-loaded with zero 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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the consequence and the approval requirement an agent needs before invoking it. Only minor gaps remain (state of the monitor during re-approval, error behavior), which is reasonable at this length.

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 all six parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description essentially restates the same fields (goal, page, name, mode). It adds no format, constraint, or interaction detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb (change/edit) plus the exact resource (a custom monitor) and enumerates the mutable fields: goal, page, name, mode. The 'custom monitor' qualifier separates it from the other mutation siblings in the list (update_check, update_visual_monitor) so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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?

Usage is implied by the field list ('give a monitor a new goal, page, name or mode') and the description hints at the consequence of using it, but it never names an alternative such as reauthor_custom_check or update_check_settings, nor states when *not* to use it. Adequate but leaves selection to inference.

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