invariance_monitor_update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false (write) and destructiveHint=false (non-destructive). The description adds the key behavior that only included fields change, which is useful context beyond annotations. It doesn't mention return values, idempotency, or authentication, but with annotations covering safety, this is acceptable.

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 sentence with no redundant words. The key concept (partial update) is front-loaded, making it immediately clear what the tool does. Efficient and appropriately sized.

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 simple update tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential partial-update semantics. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., monitor must exist) or return behavior, but given the simplicity and annotations, it's fairly 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 50%: the patch parameter has a detailed description with field list and example, while id only has a type. The description adds the overall partial-update concept, but the schema already explains patch well. id is self-evident, so no extra description is needed.

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 a specific verb ('Patch') and resource ('existing monitor') and clarifies it's a partial update where only included fields change. This distinguishes it from create (which makes a new monitor) and from pause/resume (which are state toggles), though it doesn't name siblings explicitly.

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 use for updating an existing monitor's specific fields, and the partial-update wording suggests not to use it for full replacement or creation. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives like create, pause, or resume, leaving some inference to the agent.

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