create_monitor

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which the description aligns with by describing a creation action. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it specifies the monitor's purpose (periodic URL checks and alerting on failure), which isn't covered by annotations. However, it doesn't detail rate limits, authentication needs, or specific alert mechanisms.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main action and includes essential details (URL checking, alerting) in a compact form.

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 complexity (creation with 5 parameters), annotations cover safety (destructive), and schema fully describes inputs, the description provides adequate context. It explains what the monitor does (checks URL, alerts) but lacks output details (no output schema) and doesn't mention error handling or response format, leaving minor gaps.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain 'checkInterval' or 'method' further). Baseline is 3 as the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is provided.

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 action ('create a new uptime monitor') and specifies the resource ('that periodically checks a URL and alerts on failure'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_monitor' or 'update_monitor' by emphasizing creation rather than retrieval or modification.

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 implies usage for setting up URL monitoring but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'update_monitor' or prerequisites. It mentions 'alerts on failure' which hints at its purpose, but lacks explicit guidance on when-not-to-use or comparisons with sibling tools.

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