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

Annotations supply only destructiveHint=true, so the description usefully adds the partial-update contract, the read/write key requirement, the reversibility of pausing, and a concrete data-loss warning that re-sending a credential-masked URL erases basic-auth credentials. It omits any statement of what the call returns or whether updates are idempotent.

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?

A single dense paragraph, front-loaded with the mutation scope, followed by the critical caution and auth note. Every sentence earns its place; only the trailing "updown: PUT /api/checks/:token" endpoint note is arguably filler for an agent.

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 14-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers partial semantics, auth, reversibility, and a real credential-loss trap. It would be fully complete with a note on the response (e.g. that the updated check is returned) or behavior on an invalid token.

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% with 14 well-documented parameters, so the schema already carries the field-level meaning. The description's field list and the enabled/mute_until glosses largely restate what the schema says, adding little beyond the baseline.

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) plus resource (a check's settings) and enumerates the mutable field families (URL, period, alias, string match, recipients, headers, locations) along with the pause/resume and mute behaviors. This clearly separates it from updown_create_check and updown_get_check without needing the 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?

"Only the fields you pass are changed" gives the patch semantics needed to call it correctly, and "Requires the read/write API key" states a precondition absent from the schema. It never names a sibling alternative (e.g. updown_get_check to inspect first), so it falls short of an explicit when/when-not routing statement.

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