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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the token and plan requirements, which is useful, but it doesn't mention side effects, reversibility, or behavior when the monitor is not owned or already enabled. This is a mutation tool with limited transparency beyond prerequisites.

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 superfluous words. The action is front-loaded, and the prerequisites follow naturally. Every word adds value.

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 no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It states the action, scope, and prerequisites. It could mention what happens if the monitor is not found or already enabled, but given the simplicity, the missing details are not critical.

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?

The schema covers the single parameter 'monitor_id' with a clear description, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so it doesn't exceed the baseline.

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 the verb 'Enable' and the resource 'uptime and recovery notifications for a monitor'. It also adds scoping with 'owned by the current user'. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'enable-notification-channel', the name and description strongly imply the specific action, so it's clear but not perfectly differentiated.

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 provides only prerequisites ('Requires Full Access MCP token and eligible paid plan') but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the opposing 'disable-uptime-notification' or the channel-based 'enable-notification-channel', so an agent gets no help deciding which tool fits the scenario.

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