Disable sitemap monitor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which tell the agent this is a state-changing but not destructive operation. The description adds value by clarifying snapshots are retained, confirming non-destructive behavior aligns with the annotations. It does not disclose effects on monitoring, alerts, or billing.

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?

A single, efficient sentence that captures the core action and the critical non-destructive caveat. Zero wasted words, essential information 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 state-changing tool with no output schema, the description is somewhat thin. It clarifies the non-destructive nature (good), but doesn't address what happens to the monitor state, whether it can be re-enabled later, or what the response returns. The shared project description for monitor_id is a schema issue that the description doesn't help resolve. For a relatively simple toggle operation this is acceptable but not complete.

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 description coverage is 67%, with monitor_id and project_id documented in the schema. However, both parameters share identical descriptions ('Identifier of the bisibility project to operate on'), which is a schema defect where monitor_id appears misdescribed as a project identifier. The description adds no additional meaning, and the third parameter idempotency_key is undocumented in the schema with no description coverage.

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 verb 'Disable' with a specific resource ('project sitemap monitor') and adds the key detail that existing snapshots are retained, distinguishing this from destructive operations. It differentiates from the sibling tools enable_sitemap_monitor and list_sitemap_monitors which serve different purposes.

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 the tool is used to turn off monitoring while preserving data, which is clear enough intent. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like enable_sitemap_monitor or list_sitemap_monitors, nor does it mention any prerequisites or consequences beyond snapshot retention.

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