Run a Monitor now

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

With annotations already declaring readOnly=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true, and destructive=false, the description still adds real behavioral context: the run is queued asynchronously (runId returned immediately) and survives client disconnection. This durability/async semantics goes beyond what the structured fields convey.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (immediate runId return) is front-loaded right after the action statement.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description reasonably covers the return value (runId) and the async/durability behavior. However, for a state-mutating tool with two fully undocumented parameters and an unexplained triggerKey, the definition stops short of what an agent needs 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 0% for two parameters, so the description must compensate — and it does not. Neither `id` (the monitor identifier) nor `triggerKey` (plausibly a dedupe/correlation key, especially given idempotentHint=false) is explained, so the agent is guessing about their formats and interaction.

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?

The description states a specific action ("Queue a durable manual run") and the title confirms the resource is a Monitor, so an agent knows this enqueues a monitor execution. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings such as preview_monitor, create_monitor, or get_monitor_run, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from names alone.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The word "manual" hints that this contrasts with scheduled runs, but nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over preview_monitor (likely a dry run) or whether a monitor must already exist.

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