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

readOnlyHint:false already signals a mutating operation and the descripton is consistent with it, adding which particular dimensions mutate (name, schedule, webhook, spend cap, status incluing pause/resume). No annotation contradion. But it does not disclose whether updates are partial PATCH-style or full replacement, whether switching between interval and cron schedule types is permitted, or an side effects or permission requirements — useful context an annotations alone do not provide.

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?

One efficient sentence that front-loads the verb+resource and compressed the mutable attribute list with a clarifying parenthetical for status. Every word carries meaning and nothing is redundant or padded.

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 12-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is operationally thin. It omits update semantics (partial vs full), the conditional relationship between schedule parameters (interval requires minutes, cron requires expression/timezone), and what the response looks like, so the agent must guess at valid call construction. The schema descriptions for context, llm_model, and conversation_id help marginally, but the core operational knowledge needed to invoke correctly is absent.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 25%, the description should compensate, and partially does: it groups the 12 largely undocumented parameters into five semantic categories (name, schedule, webhook endpoint, spend cap, status), giving the agent a mental model the raw schema lacks. However, it never explains how 'schedule' maps to type/minutes/timezone/expression, what null means for spendCapCredits and webhookEndpointId, or the role of the required id/context/llm_model parameters.

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 the specific verb 'update', the resource 'monitor', and enumerates the exact mutable attributes (name, schedule, webhook endpoint, spend cap, status). The field enumeration plus the update verb clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like monitors_create, monitors_delete, monitors_get, and monitors_trigger without needing to open the schema. The parenthetical '(pause/resume)' adds precision about what the status field controls.

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 usage context is implied — this is the tool for changing an existing monitor's configuration — but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no named alternatives (e.g., use monitors_create for new monitors, monitors_delete for removal), and no stated prerequisites such as needing the monitor's id from a prior monitors_list/monitors_get call. The required id parameter is left entirely unexplained, so the agent must infer the precondition from the schema.

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