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

Annotations include openWorldHint=true, so the description is not required to repeat that, but it does add useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it notes the tool does not alter check settings and requires specific authentication and plan eligibility. This gives the agent a clearer picture of the tool's side effects and constraints, though it could further clarify that enabling makes the page publicly accessible.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the negative constraint and prerequisites are clearly stated. Every word earns its place.

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 mutation tool with openWorldHint and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, what it doesn't do, and prerequisites. It could mention the immediate public visibility effect, but the purpose is clear enough from 'public status page' and the openWorldHint annotation. Overall, it is adequately complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

All four parameters have complete descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level guidance beyond what the schema already provides, which is acceptable given full schema coverage.

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 specific verb ('enable, disable, or configure') plus the resource ('a monitor's public status page') and explicitly distinguishes from the sibling 'update-monitor' by noting it does not change check settings. The description makes it unambiguous what this tool does and how it differs from other update tools.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use it (to manage the public status page) and includes the prerequisite of a Full Access MCP token and eligible paid plan. It does not explicitly list alternative tools for check settings, but the negative statement 'Does not change the monitor's own check settings' implicitly points to update-monitor for that purpose.

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