update_monitor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool performs updates but does not disclose whether updates are partial or full replacements, what effects pausing/resuming has, permission requirements, idempotency, or side effects on other resources. The description is too terse to convey critical behavioral traits for a mutation tool.

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 single, front-loaded sentence with a clear structure. It lists the actionable fields in a compact, scannable format without any filler or redundancy.

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 mutation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It does not clarify whether unspecified fields are preserved or reset, what the response contains, or any prerequisites (e.g., webhook endpoint must exist). The absence of behavioral details and the partial parameter coverage leave the tool insufficiently documented for reliable invocation.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does map 'rename' to the name parameter and 'pause/resume' to the status enum, and mentions signals/materiality/webhook. However, it does not define what 'signals' or 'webhook_endpoint_id' mean or how they interact, leaving significant ambiguity for parameters beyond their names. It adds some value but does not fully compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('a monitor'), and enumerates the updatable attributes (status, name, signals, materiality, webhook). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_monitor, get_monitor, and delete_monitor, which serve different lifecycle stages.

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 implies usage when modifying an existing monitor, listing the fields that can be changed. However, it does not explicitly contrast with create_monitor or state when not to use it, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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