update_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 but fails completely. 'Edit' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, what happens to the monitor during editing, or what the expected response format might be. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this lack of behavioral information is critically inadequate.

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 extremely concise ('Edit the specified monitor') but this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While it's front-loaded with the core action, it lacks the additional context needed for a mutation tool. The single sentence doesn't waste words, but it also doesn't provide enough information to be truly 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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, this is completely inadequate. The description doesn't explain what a 'monitor' is in this context, what can be edited, what the expected outcome is, or any error conditions. Given the complexity implied by having multiple monitor-related tools and the complete lack of structured metadata, the description fails to provide the necessary context for an agent to use this tool effectively.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters that require semantic explanation beyond what the empty schema already indicates.

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 'Edit the specified monitor' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name 'update_monitor' with a synonym. It provides no specific information about what kind of monitor this is (e.g., performance, uptime, security) or what aspects can be edited. While it does include a verb ('Edit') and resource ('monitor'), it lacks the specificity needed to distinguish it from sibling tools like 'update_monitor_v1' or 'update_monitor_notification_rule'.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple monitor-related tools in the sibling list (create_monitor, delete_monitor, get_monitor, update_monitor_v1, mute_monitor, unmute_monitor, validate_monitor_v1), but the description offers no differentiation. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or when not to use this tool.

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