Create a Monitor

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description still adds non-obvious behavior: the paused default and the prerequisite that a delivery destination be configured first, which is real setup context not present in the schema or annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the two practical setup notes. No filler or repetition; each sentence earns its place.

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?

This is a mutation tool with 9 parameters, no required fields, an undocumented nested 'config' object, and no output schema. The description explains the paused default and preset but leaves an agent without guidance on the remaining parameters or the config shape, which is inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

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% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only touches the 'preset' enum value and obliquely references the paused/enabled default; url, config (a nested object), revision, monitorId, intervalMs, ruleVersion, and staleAfterMs are left entirely unexplained in both description and schema.

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 and resource ('Create a public-document Monitor'), so an agent knows the operation and target domain. It does not differentiate from siblings like preview_monitor or list_monitors, so the disambiguation work falls to the caller.

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 gives contextual hints — the monitor defaults to paused so a delivery destination can be configured first, and the firecrawl-introduction preset should be used on first use — which implies the intended setup flow. However, it names no alternatives (e.g., preview_monitor before committing) and states no when-not conditions.

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