update_monitor

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

Annotations already disclose a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds genuinely useful PATCH semantics ('only the named fields are modified'), but says nothing about side effects, permission needs, or what happens to omitted fields' derived state.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and no filler. It is efficient, though borderline terse given the tool's 22-parameter surface.

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 22-parameter mutation with 14% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits parameter meaning, interaction with sibling pause/resume tools, and any behavioral detail an agent needs to invoke it safely.

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 14% across 22 parameters, so the description must compensate, yet it explains only 'paused'. The remaining 21 fields (target, method, headers, regions, thresholds, channelIds, etc.) get no meaning beyond their bare JSON schema types.

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 clear verb+resource ('Change fields of a monitor') and adds PATCH scope ('only the named fields are modified'). However, it does not distinguish itself from the dedicated pause_monitor and resume_monitor siblings despite mentioning the paused field.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The line 'Set paused to pause or resume it' creates ambiguity against the dedicated pause_monitor/resume_monitor tools without explaining which to prefer, leaving the agent to guess.

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