Update Monitoring Resource

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

Annotations already mark this as a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive. The description adds that only supplied fields are updated (partial update) and the modified object is returned. This is useful but minimal. It does not disclose authorization requirements, rate limits, or any side effects.

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 relatively short but contains redundant information (e.g., repeating required parameters) and the inconsistent reference to 'Budget records' detracts from clarity. It could be more concise and focused.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema, the description should explain the return value clearly. It only says 'returns the modified object on success,' which is vague. The confusion between 'Monitoring Resource' and 'Budget records' undermines completeness. With 8 parameters, the description should clarify the purpose of each updateable field, but it relies entirely on the schema.

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?

All 8 parameters have 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description merely restates required parameters (already in schema) and categorizes fields as 'JSON request body field,' which the schema also conveys. No additional meaning is added.

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 it updates a Monitoring Resource, but then inconsistently refers to 'Budget records,' causing confusion. It identifies the verb ('Updates'), resource, and includes API endpoint info, but the mixed terminology reduces clarity.

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 'Use this to update an existing Budget records (only the supplied fields are changed),' providing some guidance on partial update behavior. However, it offers no comparison to sibling tools or explicit when-not-to-use scenarios, which is essential given the many update tools on the server.

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