toggle_monitoring

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description explains the consequence — each call flips the setting — and adds an auth prerequisite (WISP_ALLOW_SERVER_SETTINGS) plus a retry warning. It does not say whether the new state is returned or how the flip fails if monitoring is unavailable, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the non-idempotency warning and the permission requirement. Every sentence carries unique, actionable information.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the mutation's effect, the retry hazard, and the permission gate. Only the return behavior (whether the resulting state is reported) is unaddressed, which is a minor gap.

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?

With one optional parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents the server_id default behavior. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable here but not additive.

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 a specific verb-plus-resource pairing ("Switch Wisp monitoring to its opposite state") and scopes it to "the selected server." This clearly separates it from adjacent mutation tools such as update_server and toggle_support_access, which the toggle semantics could otherwise be confused with.

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?

It gives a caution ("do not retry blindly") that implies usage context, but never states when to prefer this over inspecting state first (e.g., server_details) or over update_server for setting an explicit value. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, and no alternative is named.

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