update_monitor_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it discloses the two target states but not the effects of the transition (does pausing suppress alerts/crawls?), idempotency for an already-paused monitor, or permission requirements. Reversibility is implied by the pause/resume pairing, but the operational consequences are unstated.

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?

Core purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence, followed by usage examples and the required parameters. The example list is somewhat verbose but earns its place by covering multiple user phrasings; no other padding is present.

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 two-parameter mutation with an output schema, the description covers purpose, the exact state values, and required inputs. The remaining gap is behavioral: with no annotations, error conditions and side effects on alerting are left for the agent to discover.

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 0% and the status field has no enum in the schema, so the description's explicit mapping of status to "paused" (暂停) / "active" (恢复) is essential information an agent could not otherwise infer. monitor_id is only restated as "监控项 ID", adding little beyond its name.

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 first sentence states a specific pair of verbs (pause/resume) acting on a specific resource (monitor item), which is immediately distinguishable from siblings like add_monitor or get_monitor_list. An agent can classify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Three example user utterances map colloquial phrasings ("先暂停", "停掉", "恢复") onto this tool, which gives concrete when-to-use context. It stops short of naming exclusions or alternatives (e.g., that it does not create or delete monitors), so it is clear but not fully routing.

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