Set the minutes between spend monitor runs (5 to 1440)

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true. The description adds substantive behavior beyond that: the call is a write, it is not executed unless confirm:true, and there is no server-side dry run, which is important for a setter with no undo. It stops short of describing permission requirements or what happens to an existing schedule.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and the numeric constraint, then the safety caveat. The range is stated twice (title plus description) and the endpoint path is somewhat incidental, but there is no filler.

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 three-parameter setter with a nested body and no output schema, the description covers the action, the bounds, and the write-safety model including the preview fallback when confirm is absent. It could add whether the spend monitor must already be enabled or how this interacts with rules_getSpendMonitor, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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?

With 67% schema coverage, the schema already documents confirm and idempotencyKey inline, and the nested body.minutes carries minimum/maximum. The description only restates the 5–1440 range and reinforces the confirm gating, adding little syntax or format detail the schema does not already hold.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Set the minutes between spend monitor runs'), gives the accepted range (5 to 1440), and cites the underlying endpoint (PUT /v1/monitors/spend). It is clearly distinguishable from rules_getSpendMonitor by the write verb, though it never names that read counterpart explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the reader infers this is the mutation counterpart to rules_getSpendMonitor. The confirm gate is explained, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this over other monitor tools (rules_detectAnomalies, rules_simulate) or what prerequisites exist.

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