Edit Uptime Kuma Monitor

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

The key line 'Only provided fields are updated' discloses partial-update/patch behavior, which is important and not available in the annotations. Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent mutation, so the description adds meaningful behavior beyond them.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action, the key patch behavior, the arg summary, and the main use cases all appear in a few short lines. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 partial-update tool, the description covers the main behavior and typical use cases, and the schema fills in parameter details. It could slightly improve by noting whether id is immutable or how this relates to pause/resume, but those gaps are minor given the annotations and sibling context.

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 already documents each parameter well. The description adds global patch semantics with 'Only provided fields are updated,' which clarifies that omitted optional fields will not be reset or changed.

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 tool edits an existing monitor, which is a specific verb and resource. The phrase 'existing monitor' plus 'renaming, changing URL/interval' differentiates it from create, delete, pause, and resume siblings.

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 includes a direct 'Use when: renaming, changing URL/interval' section, giving an agent clear context for when to invoke it. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusion cases, but the provided use cases are enough to route common scenarios correctly.

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