keyso_post_monitoring_id_start

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the call is a POST start action and that omitted ids/aids scope the update to the whole project, but it does not mention whether the operation is asynchronous, whether it is idempotent, what authentication or rate limits apply, or what the immediate effect and response are.

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 compact and front-loads the core purpose and path before adding the conditional scoping note. It is mostly well structured, though the example URL is redundant with the path and the conditional sentence could be clearer about where ids and aids belong.

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 a state-changing trigger with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, whether the update runs asynchronously, or that progress should be checked via a tool like get_monitoring_state. An agent would be unsure about the response and required follow-up.

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 schema only describes id, body, token, and base_url, with body being an unconstrained object. The description adds valuable meaning beyond the schema by explaining that body can contain ids and aids and that omitting both triggers a full-project update, which is not inferable from the empty body schema.

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 action: launch an update of monitoring positions for a given monitoring id, and includes the explicit HTTP method and path. It is sufficiently distinguishable from sibling tools by the 'start' semantics, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with related tools like get_monitoring_state or post_monitoring.

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 one conditional usage rule: if both ids and aids are omitted, the update applies to the whole project. However, it gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling monitoring tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions for when not to call it.

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