update_monitor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains that the tool performs a read-modify-write cycle, which is a critical behavioral trait beyond a simple 'update'. It also indicates the merge semantics by instructing to pass only changed fields. However, it does not disclose error handling, idempotency, or concurrency implications, which would be extra value.

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 exceptionally concise: three short sentences that lead with the core purpose, then explain the mechanism, and finish with the parameter usage. There is no redundant information; every sentence earns its place.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, output schema present, no nested objects), the description is largely complete. It explains the operation, parameter semantics, and expected usage. Minor gaps include no mention of return values or error cases, but the output schema can cover return structure, and the behavior is straightforward. It is adequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 provides 100% coverage for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic clarification by stating 'Pass a JSON object with only the fields you want to change', explicitly emphasizing partial updates beyond the schema's 'fields to update'. This helps agents understand that fields_json should not contain the full config, which is a valuable addition.

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 'Update a monitor's configuration' with the verb 'update' and the resource 'monitor configuration'. It also explains the read-modify-write process, distinguishing it from simple state toggles like enable_monitor or disable_monitor. The scope is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides clear context on how to use the tool: 'Pass a JSON object with only the fields you want to change.' This gives practical guidance for the fields_json parameter. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the read-modify-write behavior and the instruction to pass only changed fields make the intended usage clear.

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