update_monitor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states 'update' without mentioning that it mutates state, replaces certain fields (as hinted in schema descriptions), or any side effects. The schema notes field replacement behaviors (e.g., 'Replace all assertions; null preserves current'), but the description itself lacks this context.

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 short sentence, which is concise. However, it is too minimal and lacks useful structure. It earns its place but does not provide enough information.

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?

Despite the existence of an output schema, the description is insufficient for a tool with complex nested parameters and multiple monitor types. It does not explain the scope of what can be updated or how the body parameter works. The description is incomplete for practical use.

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 context signal indicates 0% schema description coverage. Despite the schema having many embedded descriptions, the description does not add any parameter semantics beyond the name. The description is too vague to help an agent understand the complex body parameter requirements.

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 'Update an existing monitor's configuration' clearly indicates the action (update) and resource (monitor configuration). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like create_monitor or delete_monitor. 4 is appropriate as it is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., monitor_id required) or contrast with create_monitor, pause_monitor, etc. This is a significant gap given the large number of sibling tools.

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