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

Annotations already declare it is a non-readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds real value beyond that with the patch/merge contract ('Only the fields you pass change'), telling the agent unlisted fields are preserved. It still omits auth/permission requirements and what the response contains.

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, zero filler, with the field list front-loaded and the partial-update rule immediately after it. Nothing to trim.

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 7-parameter mutation with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description plus schema covers nearly everything an agent needs. The main residual gap is that the required manage_token credential and any failure behavior are left entirely to the schema.

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 86%, so the schema already documents id, manage_token, webhook_url, grace_seconds and slow_tps_threshold. The description's field list roughly mirrors the schema parameters without adding formats, ranges, or clearing semantics beyond what the schema states.

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 clear verb ('Change') plus the resource ('a monitor's ...') and enumerates the mutable fields (name, grace period, slow threshold, webhook, visibility). The verb alone separates it from create_monitor/delete_monitor, though the description never names those siblings explicitly, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 description says what can be changed but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that the manage_token is required and returned only once by create_monitor), and no mention of alternatives. 'Only the fields you pass change' is a behavioral note, not routing guidance.

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