update_monitor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the HTTP method (PUT) implying full replacement and that it is a write operation. However, it omits any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or the need to provide the complete monitor object. The description adds some context beyond the schema but could be more transparent.

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 communicates the essential information efficiently. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 complexity (nested object parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too minimal. It fails to mention what the response is (updated monitor object or status), that the entire monitor definition must be provided, or any error conditions. For a mutation tool, more context is needed.

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 has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter meaning beyond stating 'by entity ID', which is already evident from the schema. No additional semantics are 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 it updates/replaces a synthetic monitor definition, specifies it is a WRITE operation, and references the API method (PUT) and endpoint. It distinguishes from create_monitor and delete_monitor by using 'update' and 'replace' language.

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?

While the name 'update' and sibling tools like create_monitor imply when to use it, there is no explicit guidance on prerequisites (e.g., monitor must exist), that it performs a full replacement rather than partial update, or when to use alternatives like get_monitor first.

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