doorzo_monitor_add

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals the core alerting behavior (matching keyword and price) but omits important side effects such as notification delivery, persistence of the monitor, or behavior when existing monitors share the same name. The schema descriptions fill some gaps, but the main description itself is thin.

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 a single, focused sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters and an output schema, but the description is quite brief. While the schema covers parameter details, the description does not explain the overall workflow (e.g., that the monitor will immediately start watching, that notifications only work on macOS, or how monitors are managed after creation). It provides the core idea but lacks sufficient context for a user to fully understand the tool's place in the broader system.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal context by linking 'keyword' and 'at/below price' to the corresponding parameters, but it does not elaborate on parameter meanings beyond what the schema already provides.

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 tool's function: 'Add a deal monitor: alert when items match keyword at/below price.' The verb 'Add' specifies the action, and the resource and condition ('deal monitor', 'keyword at/below price') are unambiguous. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like remove, list, and search by focusing on creation and alerting.

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 usage context is implied: it is used to create a new deal monitor, whereas siblings cover removal, listing, and checking. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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