firecrawl_monitor_run

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

Annotations indicate non-readOnly (mutation) and non-destructive. The description adds that it returns the queued check. However, there is no mention of permissions, rate limits, or other side effects beyond the normal schedule alteration.

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 succinct sentences plus a JSON usage example. Every element serves a purpose, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and return. However, missing parameter explanation and lack of error/disclaimer info leave it slightly incomplete.

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?

The single required parameter 'id' has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The description does not explain its meaning; only the usage example shows a hypothetical value ('mon_abc123'). This leaves semantic ambiguity.

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 clearly states the tool triggers a monitor check immediately outside its normal schedule. It uses specific verb and resource ('firecrawl_monitor_run'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like firecrawl_monitor_check.

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 implies usage for forcing an immediate check, but provides no when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives. Context from sibling names might suggest firecrawl_monitor_check for checking status, but this is not explicit.

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