update_monitor_alert_statusIdempotently updates only the case status and note for an alert owned by the authenticated monitor account. It never changes notification state or performs wallet actions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | ||
| alertId | Yes | ||
| caseStatus | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds concrete behavioral detail: it touches only case status and note, requires alert ownership, and guarantees no notification or wallet side effects. This significantly clarifies what the mutation does and does not do.
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 tightly written sentences with no filler. The core behavior is stated first, followed by explicit non-behaviors. Every clause 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 simple three-parameter mutation tool with strong annotations, the description is nearly complete: it defines scope, ownership, idempotency, and excluded behaviors. It does not describe return values or error cases, and there is no output schema to fill that gap, so it is not quite a 5.
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 0%, so the description carries the burden of mapping parameters to real-world meaning. It does this well: 'case status' maps to caseStatus, 'note' maps to note, and 'alert owned by the authenticated monitor account' gives ownership semantics to alertId. It does not enumerate each parameter by name, but the semantic mapping is clear.
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 ('updates'), a specific resource ('case status and note for an alert'), and a precise scope ('owned by the authenticated monitor account'). The 'only' and 'never' clauses further distinguish it from sibling monitor tools without needing to read their schemas.
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 establishes the intended use: update the case status and note on an alert. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use conditions, but the explicit 'never changes notification state or performs wallet actions' provides meaningful exclusion context. The absence of a named alternative keeps it just shy of a 5.
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.