monitor_control

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

The description goes well beyond annotations by disclosing concrete side effects: pause stops scheduled checks, resume may hit the active-monitor cap, run_now is billed like a normal check, and delete permanently removes the monitor and history. The destructiveHint annotation is fully supported and enriched by the description.

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 information-dense and front-loads the core purpose, but the single paragraph with multiple quoted actions and side-effect clauses is slightly harder to scan. Each phrase earns its place, though structured bullets would improve readability.

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 output schema exists and annotations declare destructive behavior, the description covers everything needed to choose and invoke the tool correctly: action semantics, consequences, billing, cap risks, and id sourcing. There are no meaningful gaps for correct usage.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial meaning to the action parameter by explaining the behavior and consequences of every enum value. It also reinforces the id parameter's source by telling the agent to use monitor_list, complementing the schema's brief reference to monitor_list or monitor_create.

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 'Control an existing website monitor' and enumerates the four concrete actions (pause, resume, run_now, delete), making the operation unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing 'existing' and pointing to monitor_list for finding the id, which separates it from monitor_create and monitor_list.

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 provides clear operational context for each action and explicitly instructs the agent to 'Use monitor_list to find the id.' It does not explicitly name monitor_create or monitor_changes as alternatives, but the 'existing monitor' qualifier and the listed actions imply when this tool is appropriate.

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