Recurring Update Recurring Stream

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

Annotations already convey readOnly=false and idempotent=false, so the description only adds 'This may create or update Monarch data,' which hints that an update might also create a stream. This is some extra context but remains vague about actual side effects and does not explain what data is affected or whether changes are reversible.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, no redundant padding. The second sentence adds a behavioral warning and earns its place, making this highly concise and well structured.

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 seven parameters, no output schema, and no usage guidance, this description is too thin. It fails to clarify the required recurring_id, when creation may occur, or the expected response shape, leaving the agent to infer most behavior from schema and sibling names.

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 description does not mention any of the seven parameters, and schema coverage is only 29%, meaning most properties are undocumented by both schema and description. With such low coverage, the description needed to compensate but instead adds zero parameter-level meaning.

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 states a clear verb and resource, 'Update recurring stream,' so an agent can see the primary action and target. It does not, however, distinguish this from recurring_create_recurring_stream or recurring_remove_recurring_stream, which limits sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the create or remove siblings. The phrase 'This may create or update Monarch data' hints at upsert behavior but never states explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternatives.

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