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

Far exceeds the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=true) by disclosing the ~30-second incident-open latency, that channels are paged unless a maintenance window holds it, the status-page presentation per state, that up closes the incident, that the note becomes the incident cause, and the confirmation/token-scope behavior. This is exactly the mutation side-effect detail an agent needs before calling.

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 core action and legal values in the first sentence, then layers consequences. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the note guidance ('make it a reason a responder can act on') partially duplicates the schema's own note 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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the remaining risk surface for a mutating tool: incident lifecycle, paging, maintenance suppression, paused-plan edge case, refusal conditions, and confirmation/auth behavior. Nothing material is missing.

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?

With 67% schema coverage the schema already documents id, state and note, but the description adds intent-level guidance the schema lacks: why the state matters (outage vs degraded on status pages), that the note must be actionable for a responder, and the monitor-kind constraint on id. It adds real semantic value over the structured fields.

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 the exact verb and resource (set the state of a manual monitor) plus the three legal values, and immediately scopes it to manual monitors with no probe, distinguishing it from every update_monitor/pause_monitor sibling. An agent knows precisely what this does 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?

Gives a strong when-to-use rationale ('a service only people can judge, such as a SIP trunk, a carrier link or a partner's back office') and an explicit when-not ('Refused for any other kind of monitor'), plus the paused/no-longer-covered caveat. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives such as pause_monitor or update_monitor for adjacent operations.

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