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

Annotations already mark the tool as not read-only and idempotent, and the description restates those facts. It also adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the confirmation prompt behavior and the fallback to the token's scope when a prompt cannot be shown.

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 short, front-loaded with the primary action, and uses only three sentences. The 'Not read-only; idempotent' sentence partially duplicates annotations, but it is brief and does not bloat the description.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety/idempotency, the description gives enough context to call it correctly. It explains the effect, the confirmation behavior, and token scope, and the output schema covers return values.

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%, and the schema already explains that `id` is the monitor id from `list_monitors`. The tool description does not add extra parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Resume a paused monitor (restart its checks).' This clearly separates it from pause_monitor and run_check_now, making the tool's purpose immediately obvious.

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 phrase 'Resume a paused monitor' implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. It gives some contextual guidance about confirmation and token scope, but no direct comparison to sibling tools.

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