update_monitor_message

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It states 'update' but does not specify partial update behavior, side effects, authorization needs, or what happens if fields are omitted. Schema implies optional fields but description adds no clarity beyond that.

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?

Single sentence, 14 words, front-loaded with action. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or filler.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and proximity to many related monitor tools, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what a 'monitor message' is, its relationship to other monitor entities, or the return value. The agent lacks context for proper invocation.

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% (all 7 parameters have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description lists some fields but does not add meaning beyond the schema. It omits noting 'sender_name' as an updatable field, but schema covers it.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'Update' and resource 'monitor message', listing updatable fields. Differentiates from sibling tools like get_monitor_message (read) and delete_monitor_messages (delete). Could be more specific about the system context (e.g., monitoring system).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites or exclusions. The description implies usage by listing fields but does not explicitly state when to choose this over other monitor tools.

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