edit_monitor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses that only provided fields are updated, a critical detail for a mutation tool. However, it does not mention permissions, idempotency, validation, or effects on related resources. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but other behavioral aspects remain undisclosed.

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?

The description is two short sentences with no redundant information. The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds essential behavioral context without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the tool's high complexity (16 parameters), the description is adequately complete because the schema fully documents each parameter and an output schema exists to explain return values. The description adds the crucial partial-update behavior. It could have included a note about required authorization or error cases, but the current content is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 100%, providing per-parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that only provided fields are updated, which implies that null or omitted parameters are ignored rather than set to null. This semantic is important for correctly using the many nullable parameters and goes beyond the schema's 'default: null' notation.

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 uses the specific verb 'Edit' with the resource 'monitor', clearly indicating a modification operation on an existing entity. It distinguishes from siblings like create_monitor, delete_monitor, and reset_monitor by focusing on editing, and the phrase 'Only provided fields are updated' adds precision about the update scope.

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 description clearly states the tool is for editing an existing monitor, which implies when to use it. The key guidance 'Only provided fields are updated' communicates the partial-update semantics, helping the agent avoid overwriting unspecified fields. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, though the context is clear given sibling names.

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