firecrawl_monitor_update

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive (mutating). The description adds context by listing the specific fields that can be patched and noting the partial update behavior. No contradiction with 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?

The description is concise: two sentences plus a code block. Every sentence adds value. The usage example is appropriately placed and helpful.

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 update tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the body parameter well and gives an example. However, it could mention that the monitor ID must exist and what the response looks like (though no output schema is defined).

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly lists the allowed fields for the `body` parameter (name, status, schedule, etc.) and provides a usage example showing how to pass id and body. This adds essential meaning beyond the 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?

The description clearly states 'Update a monitor' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create, delete, get, and list by being the update operation. The list of patchable fields further clarifies 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 implies usage when modifying an existing monitor. The usage example provides concrete guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for creating or deleting) or mention prerequisites like needing the monitor ID to be valid.

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