resume_monitor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals the state transition (paused to active) but says nothing about whether the call is idempotent, what happens if the monitor is not currently paused, what permissions or paid-tier gating may apply, or what is returned.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the scope caveat.

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 simple two-parameter state-changing tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and its type restriction. However, with zero annotation coverage it should have addressed the failure modes and side effects of a mutation that an agent needs before invoking it.

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 both monitor_id and monitor_type are already documented, including the heartbeat-only constraint. The description repeats that constraint but adds no new meaning such as ID format or accepted values beyond heartbeat.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ("Resume a paused heartbeat monitor") and adds a scope constraint ("Only heartbeat monitors are supported"). It does not explicitly name the sibling it pairs with (pause_monitor), so an agent gets a clear purpose but must infer the partner tool.

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?

"Resume a paused" establishes the precondition for use, and "Only heartbeat monitors are supported" is an explicit exclusion. It is weaker on alternatives – it never points to pause_monitor as the inverse operation or says what to do for non-heartbeat monitor types.

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