create_monitor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does the most important job: it reveals that managedBy is silently forced to 'MCP' server-side and cannot be overridden, plus it names the escape hatch (SDK/CLI). This is genuinely non-obvious behavior an agent must know before calling. It stops short of mentioning other side effects (e.g., a new monitor begins checking immediately), but the override disclosure is the critical trait.

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?

Five short lines, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then required fields, then the behavioral caveat. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is redundant with the schema.

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?

The tool is extremely complex (8 monitor types, dozens of assertion variants, incident policies, auth configs), but the input schema carries that weight with 100% parameter coverage and an output schema exists. The description adds the essential managedBy context. However, its inaccurate type enum and erroneous 'required' claim for frequencySeconds leave an agent with an incomplete and partly wrong mental model of valid inputs, which is a meaningful gap for a tool of this complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description introduces active misinformation that the schema contradicts: frequencySeconds is listed as required although the schema marks it optional with a null default, the stated range (30-86400) conflicts with the schema's 10-86400, and the type list (HTTP/DNS/TCP/ICMP/MCP/HEARTBEAT) omits BROWSER and MULTI_STEP_API while using 'MCP' instead of the schema's 'MCP_SERVER' enum value. All three errors could cause a failed or invalid call.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource pair ('Create a new uptime monitor'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the monitor siblings (update_monitor, delete_monitor, pause_monitor, list_monitors, get_monitor). The required-fields summary reinforces the scope and tells the agent exactly what creating a monitor entails.

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 provides a useful prerequisite checklist (name, type, config, frequencySeconds) and one explicit when-not: use the SDK or CLI directly if a different managedBy attribution is needed. However, it offers no guidance on the more common decision points—when to create versus update an existing monitor, or being able to use test_monitor first.

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