update_monitor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether this is a partial/merge update or a replacement, whether omitted fields are preserved, what permissions are needed, or what happens on an unknown id, all of which matter for a mutation tool.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the field list after the colon. It is efficient, though the comma-heavy field enumeration is slightly dense.

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 an eight-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits the most agent-relevant facts: partial vs full update semantics, permission requirements, and error behavior. The schema covers the fields, but the behavior around the update is undocumented.

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%, so all eight parameters are already documented in the schema, including the enum-like allowed values for stock_alert_type and price_threshold_type. The description's field list (URL, selector, check interval, thresholds) largely restates the schema without adding format or constraint detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Update) and resource (fields of an existing monitor) and enumerates the updatable fields, which distinguishes it from create_monitor and delete_monitor. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with the sibling set, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 says nothing about when to use this tool versus set_monitor_status (which also mutates a monitor) or get_monitor, and gives no prerequisites such as needing a valid monitor id. Usage is only inferable from the name and the word 'existing'.

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