set_monitor_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals that this only affects an existing monitor, but says nothing about whether the change is idempotent, whether paused monitors stop evaluating/alerting, whether permissions are required, or what happens on an invalid id.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler, appropriate for a two-parameter tool. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than pure economy.

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 status-toggle mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits side effects and permission requirements that an agent would want before invoking a write operation.

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 100%, with both id and status fully documented in the schema including the active/paused enum, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantics (e.g. what 'active' vs 'paused' means operationally) beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb pair (pause/resume) and a specific resource (an existing monitor), which is more precise than the sibling update_monitor. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from update_monitor, which could also change status.

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?

There is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over update_monitor, nor any stated preconditions (e.g. the monitor must exist, permissions needed). The word 'existing' hints at a precondition but is not elaborated into usable guidance.

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