disable_monitor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the immediate effect (stops evaluation/alerting) but does not mention reversibility, whether monitor configuration is retained, permission requirements, or side effects on history/alerts. This one-line description offers limited behavioral transparency beyond the obvious.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action phrase and contains no redundant words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The description explains what the tool does but not when to choose it over alternatives or what side effects occur. Because the schema covers the parameter and an output schema exists, the main gap is contextual guidance about usage and consequences, which is acceptable for a simple tool yet not fully complete.

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 already fully describes monitor_id (with title and description), and schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 action ('Disable a monitor') and its consequence ('to stop evaluation and alerting'), distinguishing it from enable/delete by specifying the operational effect. This gives the agent an unambiguous understanding of the tool's primary function.

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 phrase 'to stop evaluation and alerting' implies the tool is used when monitoring should cease, but it does not explicitly contrast with delete_monitor or provide exclusions such as 'use delete_monitor to permanently remove'. The usage context is implied rather than explicit, so a score of 3 is warranted.

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