update_monitor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions it's a PATCH (partial update) and hints that pausing preserves history, but does not disclose side effects of updating other fields (e.g., whether changing url triggers a restart, whether data is lost). For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 concise with two sentences. It front-loads the HTTP method and endpoint, then lists updatable fields. Every sentence adds information. However, it could include a brief note on typical use without becoming verbose.

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 6 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain required parameters (monitor_id), success/error behavior, response format, or prerequisites. The tool is a mutation with moderate complexity, and the description lacks contextual completeness.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It enumerates 5 of 6 parameters (excluding monitor_id) but provides no additional context about their formats or allowed values beyond what the enum constraints already specify. The hint about 'status paused' adds some value, but overall the description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 specific fields (url, monitor_type, cadence, status, min_severity) on a monitor resource. It uses a PATCH verb and identifies the resource via /v1/monitors/:id. While it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like create_monitor or delete_monitor, the list of fields and the status hint provide enough clarity for a developer to understand its purpose.

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 specific usage hint: 'Use status paused to keep history.' This gives a when-to-use scenario for pausing. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool, prerequisites (e.g., monitor must exist), or alternatives. The hint is helpful but limited.

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