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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, the description adds substantial value: concrete execution limits (30 seconds, 40 API calls, 12,000 characters total, 3,000 per string, 100 items per array) and the scope of write operations. The statement 'Nothing is deleted' is useful but sits in mild tension with destructiveHint=true, since updates can still overwrite existing monitor configuration; that nuance is not explained.

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?

The description is front-loaded with what the tool does and the monitor write surface, then the limits, with no filler sentences. It is dense and information-rich, though the long list of limits and operation names in one block is slightly harder to scan than a cleanly separated structure would be.

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 code-execution tool with no output schema, it correctly delegates return-value documentation ('The MONITORS section of arcmira_describe has the fields and results') and covers runtime and size limits, which is the main failure mode for an agent writing JS here. The remaining gap is the interaction between 'Nothing is deleted' and the destructive hint, which an agent mutating existing monitors would benefit from understanding.

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 100% for both parameters, so the schema already explains `code` and `intent` fully. The description adds only indirect context by saying it 'Runs JavaScript like arcmira_execute_read', which reinforces the execution model but adds no new constraint on the parameters themselves. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Creates and updates Arcmira monitors') and immediately scopes the resource ('alert ... when a person, brand or phrase comes up on YouTube'), then distinguishes it from the sibling by saying it 'Runs JavaScript like arcmira_execute_read, plus the monitor writes'. An agent can separate this from arcmira_execute_read without opening either schema.

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?

It clearly frames the write context by enumerating the write operations available (create, update including paused, addEntities, addName, attachTrackers) and contrasting with the read sibling, so the agent knows when this tool is required. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or prerequisites (e.g. whether monitors must already exist for update/attach calls), which keeps it below a 5.

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