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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the required token level, paid plan eligibility, and ownership scope. However, it does not mention whether the action is reversible, what happens to other notification settings, or what the response format is—gaps for a mutation tool.

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 with no fluff. The core action is front-loaded, and the prerequisite sentence is concise. Every word adds information; nothing is redundant.

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 simple one-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, ownership constraint, and access requirements. It lacks explicit statements about reversibility or error behavior, but those are minor given the existence of a sibling enable tool and the tool's simplicity.

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% and the schema already documents monitor_id as 'The UUID of the monitor to update'. The description adds a valuable constraint—'owned by the current user'—which clarifies the valid set of values for the parameter beyond the schema's generic phrasing.

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 clearly states a specific action (Disable) on a specific resource (uptime and recovery notifications for a monitor), and adds an ownership scoping ('owned by the current user'). It is distinct from sibling tools like disable-notification-channel (which targets channels, not monitors) and enable-uptime-notification (opposite verb).

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 mentions prerequisites (Full Access token, paid plan) and ownership constraint, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, such as disable-notification-channel or enable-uptime-notification. An agent must infer the appropriate context from the name alone.

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