set_monitor_enabled

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 simply restates the action without explaining side effects, persistence, permission requirements, or what happens to the monitor when enabled/disabled. This is a significant gap for a mutating operation.

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 that is easy to parse. It is appropriately concise for such a simple tool, though it sacrifices detail for brevity. No unnecessary words are 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description is not entirely inadequate, but it lacks important context. It does not mention return values, whether the change is persistent, or any error conditions. With no annotations and an unhelpful schema, more explanation is needed for a complete picture.

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 input schema provides no property descriptions (0% coverage), and the description does not explain the meaning of 'watch_id' or 'enabled' beyond the implied toggle. The description adds no value to the parameter understanding, leaving the agent to guess at identifiers and boolean semantics.

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 verb ('Enable or disable') and the resource ('a scheduled monitor'), making its purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like run_monitor_now (executes immediately) and register_subscription_monitor (creates a new monitor), as it specifically toggles the enabled state.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or cases where another sibling tool would be more appropriate. The intended context is only implicitly understood from the name and description.

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