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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful partial-update semantics ('Only the fields sent change'), but omits the consequence of a destructive change here — a tighter expectation can flip a monitor to down and trigger incidents/alerts — which is exactly what an agent should know before mutating.

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 short sentences with zero filler, front-loading what actually changes and following with the key partial-update constraint. Nothing is wasted.

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 3-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description plus schema gives everything needed: required id, the two optional fields, null-clearing, valid code range, and PATCH-style semantics.

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%, so each parameter including the null-clears-it behavior for expectedBody and the 100–599 code range is fully documented in the schema. The description restates the two fields without adding format, default, or validation detail, so 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 specific verb and the exact resource fields being modified: which response codes count as up, plus the required body text. The scope is narrow enough to separate it from most siblings, but it never distinguishes itself from the adjacent vs_monitors_update_content tool, which plausibly touches similar content-checking configuration.

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?

'Only the fields sent change' implies partial-update usage, so an agent can infer it should send just the fields to alter rather than a full monitor definition. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives such as vs_monitors_update_content for content-check settings.

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