Update Monitoring Resource

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, etc.), the description adds valuable behavioral context: partial update semantics, payload nesting under 'monitoring_resource', project_id default behavior, id resolution requirement, return value, and common error HTTP statuses. This goes well beyond annotation hints without contradicting them.

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 dense single paragraph, but every sentence contributes useful information: partial updates, payload handling, defaults, id resolution, return value, and error handling. It could be more readable with bullet points, but it is not verbose or wasteful.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key contextual needs: what is returned (modified resource), how errors manifest (HTTP statuses), required parameters, and the underlying API endpoint. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional documentation.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already described. The description adds extra semantic value by explaining that fields are passed as top-level arguments but nested in the payload for you, and by clarifying the role of project_id (defaulting to config) and id (must identify an existing record). This enhances the schema rather than merely repeating it.

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 opens with 'Updates a Monitoring Resource's attributes', clearly stating the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_monitoring_resource, list_monitoring_resources, and delete_monitoring_resource by focusing on modification of existing attributes.

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 provides explicit guidance on how to use the tool: send only fields to change, project_id defaults from config, and 'resolve it with the matching list tool first' for the id. It names the list tool as an alternative for identifying existing records, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool versus create/delete.

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