create_monitor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior detail by disclosing what omitted fields default to and how regions default to ["auto"], but it says nothing about side effects such as alerting channels firing or what happens on re-creation of a same-named monitor.

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?

Three tight sentences, no filler, and the core parameters are front-loaded ahead of the defaults and regions detail. Slightly clipped syntax ('type is http, ...', the bare 'regions defaults to') costs a little readability but nothing is wasted.

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 21-parameter creation tool with no output schema and 10% schema coverage, the description covers only a fraction of the surface. Critical creation concepts such as which channels receive alerts, failure thresholds, and monitor dependencies are never mentioned, leaving an agent unable to call this correctly for anything but a minimal monitor.

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 description coverage is only 10% across 21 parameters, so the description has to compensate and it partially does: it defines target's expected formats and the defaults for intervalSec and expectedStatus. But the majority of parameters (channelIds, failureThreshold, minRegionsFailing, dependsOnMonitorId, keyword/keywordMode, graceSec, tags) get no explanation anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create a monitor') and immediately clarifies the two most important parameters, type and target, with concrete formats (URL, host:port, hostname). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from update_monitor/delete_monitor, but the verb makes the create role unambiguous.

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?

Provides useful context on defaults (60 s interval, expect HTTP 200) and points to list_regions for valid region names, which is a real routing hint. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives or what prerequisites (workspace/project) apply, so usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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