twitter_monitor_update

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses important behaviors: atomic application of changes, re-run of capacity and per-account cap checks on resume (adding load to shared pool), and that it's free per call. This adds valuable context not available in the annotations.

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?

Despite being information-dense, the description is compact and well-structured. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds critical behavioral notes (atomicity, resume checks, free) and finally clarifies optionality. No wasted words.

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?

With four parameters (one required) and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what, how, when, and side effects. It explains the update semantics, the optional fields, and the resume behavior. It's complete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 description enhances parameter understanding beyond the schema. It explains that all three optional fields can be omitted to leave unchanged, clarifies how to clear restrictions (empty string for webhook_ids, empty string/null for domain_filter), and notes the domain_filter validation (400 if non-empty doesn't normalize). This goes well beyond the schema descriptions.

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 action: 'Partially update an existing monitor' with specific fields (status, webhook_ids, domain_filter) and the ability to combine changes atomically. This distinguishes it from siblings like twitter_monitor_create and twitter_monitor_delete, which are for creation and deletion respectively.

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 when to use it: for updating an existing monitor, as opposed to creating or deleting. It also provides context about resuming a paused monitor triggering capacity checks. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls slightly short of a 5.

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