stop_monitor_subscriptionIdempotently disables monitoring for one account-owned subscription without deleting its audit history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| subscriptionId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context by scoping to account-owned subscriptions and explicitly stating that audit history is preserved, which softens the destructive implication. It does not mention failure behavior or return values, but for a one-parameter action this is acceptable.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the essential qualifier. Every word adds value; no redundant detail or filler.
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 low-complexity mutation tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what is stopped, the ownership scope, idempotency, and what is preserved. It could note behavior on already-disabled subscriptions or errors, but annotations and the idempotent hint largely cover that.
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 0% and the description does not explicitly define subscriptionId. However, the description's phrase 'one account-owned subscription' implies that the ID must reference such a subscription, and the property name plus title make the parameter's role reasonably clear. Still, the description does not fully compensate for the missing schema documentation.
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 ('disables'), identifies the resource ('monitoring for one account-owned subscription'), and adds a clear non-effect ('without deleting its audit history'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like stop_monitor_a2a_endpoint and makes the action unambiguous.
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 clear context: use this tool when you want to disable monitoring while preserving audit history. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the behavior is specific enough that an agent can select it correctly among the sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool pairs a single verb with a distinct resource or action, and descriptions explicitly separate state-changing, state-free, verification, and list/get operations. Even similar tools like the two challenge creators are clearly differentiated by challenge type (DNS TXT vs endpoint), so misselection is unlikely.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using clear verbs like create, get, list, register, stop, update, and verify. The monitor_ prefix is used uniformly for monitor-related resources, while distinct domains such as risk and capabilities have their own readable nouns.
At 17 tools, the set is slightly heavier than the typical well-scoped range, but each tool covers a distinct operation across subscriptions, endpoints, alerts, policy evaluation, and risk verification. The count is reasonable given the breadth of the platform.
Core read and write operations exist for subscriptions, endpoints, and alerts, but lifecycle coverage has notable gaps: there is no endpoint get/update/delete, no subscription activation/resume, and no way to enable delivery after verification. Several workflows end at stopped or pending states unless external actions occur.