monitors_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does substantial work: discloses that calls are free, that only completed check runs consume credits at 1 credit per run, and explains the difference between exact-fingerprint page monitoring and sitemap entry-change monitoring. It does not mention response shape or monitor lifecycle side effects, but core behavioral details are well covered.

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 dense but organized: purpose first, then cost model, then target type semantics. There is minor redundancy in 'Create a website-change monitor. Creates a monitor...' but each subsequent sentence earns its place by adding defaults, caps, and behavioral distinctions.

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 creation tool with a nested request object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides strong context about target types and cost but still leaves gaps: it never states the return value/created monitor shape, does not enumerate required request fields, and does not describe scheduling or webhook configuration details. It is above minimum viable but not fully 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?

The schema only describes 'request' as 'Monitor definition,' which is shallow given the nested object. The description compensates by documenting target_type defaults, page vs sitemap behavior, include/exclude glob patterns, max_urls defaults, and hard caps. This adds real meaning beyond the schema, though not every nested field is enumerated.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a website-change monitor.' It then specifies what the monitor does (periodically checks a page or sitemap, notifies a webhook), clearly distinguishing it from sibling CRUD tools like monitors_get, monitors_list, monitors_update, and monitors_delete.

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 clearly explains the two modes of use (page vs sitemap), including the default target_type and the semantics of sitemap-specific settings. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives, though the verb 'create' and sibling names make that fairly inferable.

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