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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description and name clearly describe a write/mutation operation ('Update'). This is a direct contradiction, so the description fails to disclose true behavioral traits. Fields like target_type resetting the diff baseline (only in schema) are not surfaced here either.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, but the extreme brevity leaves gaps that a sentence or two could have filled for a mutation tool.

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 mutation tool with 7 parameters at 29% schema coverage, an output schema, and contradictory annotations, the description is far too thin. It omits what can be updated, auth requirements, and the scope of changes, so an agent lacks the context to call it correctly.

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 only 29%: top-level name, enabled, and cadence_minutes have no descriptions at all. The description adds zero parameter meaning to compensate, leaving several parameters undocumented across both schema and prose.

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 (Update) and resource (website-change monitors) with scope ('current principal's'). This is clear enough to distinguish it from monitors_create/delete/get/list by action, though it never explicitly names the siblings.

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 only guidance is the implicit scope of 'current principal's'. There is no statement of when to use this versus monitors_create or monitors_get, no preconditions, and no note that an existing monitor id is required.

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