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

With empty annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the auth requirement ('Full Access MCP token'), the plan requirement ('eligible paid plan'), ownership scope, and the behavioral effect of restoring scheduled checks. It does not cover idempotency or error if the monitor is already running, but the core behavioral contract is disclosed.

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?

A single focused sentence front-loads the action and scope, then adds only the essential prerequisites. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the tool does, who can use it, and what effect it has. It could mention response/error behavior, but the action is simple and the description is otherwise complete.

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 already documents monitor_id as 'The UUID of the monitor to resume', and coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by constraining that ID further: it must belong to the current user and be a paused monitor. This is meaningful semantic information beyond the raw schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Resume') and resource ('monitor') with an explicit scope ('owned by the current user by ID') and effect ('restoring scheduled checks'). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like pause-monitor and update-monitor.

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 makes the intended context clear: use when a monitor is paused and needs to be resumed. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when-not-to-use, but the context is unambiguous and the target action is obvious.

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