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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the write/safety profile is covered. The description still adds a crucial non-obvious behavioral fact for a PUT: 'Only the fields you pass change,' correcting the default assumption that PUT replaces the whole object, and clarifies the scope (no enable/create/billing side effects).

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?

Front-loaded with 'WRITE:' and the field list, then the partial-update rule, then the exclusions, then the endpoint. Every clause carries information; no filler sentences.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what can be changed, how partial updates behave, and what the tool avoids. It lacks a note on return shape or what happens to unspecified fields beyond 'only what you pass changes', but that is a minor gap given the annotations carry the safety profile.

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 88%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns more by mapping human-readable concepts onto confusing parameter names — 'timeout (threshold seconds)' and 're-checks before alert (sens)' — which the schema alone does not disambiguate. It also conveys the partial-update rule for all optional fields.

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 (change/update) and resource (a check), then enumerates the exact updatable fields (label, description, tags, target, threshold, sens). It explicitly excludes enabling, creating, and billing, which separates it from siblings like nodeping_disable_check and any create tool without requiring the schema to be opened.

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?

Gives clear context (WRITE to an existing check, partial update, PUT endpoint) and negative guidance ('does not enable the check, create checks or touch billing'). It does not explicitly point at the alternative tools for those tasks (e.g. nodeping_disable_check, nodeping_mute_check), so routing is implied rather than named.

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