Create Uptime Kuma Monitor

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

With annotations already marking this as readOnly=false and idempotent=false, the description's key additional behavioral disclosure is that it returns the new monitorID. It does not contradict the annotations and provides useful extra context that compensates for the missing output schema.

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 front-loaded with purpose and return value, followed by a terse parameter summary and a single routing note. No sentence is wasted; the argument list uses compact notation that adds value without reproducing the schema.

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 complex 11-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description plus annotations cover the essentials: creation behavior, return value, type-dependent parameters, defaults, and the relationship to edit_monitor. The schema handles the remaining field-level details, so nothing critical is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is met. The description adds value by summarizing type-specific parameter requirements ('url/hostname/port/keyword as required by type'), providing defaults for type and interval, and showing the shape of notificationIDList. This goes beyond the schema descriptions without being verbose.

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 opens with 'Create a new monitor,' naming the specific action and resource, and states it returns the new monitorID. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like uptime_kuma_edit_monitor and uptime_kuma_list_monitors.

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?

It provides an explicit use case ('monitor https://exampl.com every 60s'), covers when to create, and explicitly says not to use it for edits, routing to edit_monitor. That is clear when/when-not guidance with a named alternative.

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