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. The description merely restates the action and gives no information about side effects (e.g., whether existing values are overwritten), authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens on failure. This is a critical gap for a mutation tool.

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 with no wordiness. It conveys the basic purpose efficiently, but it is so terse that it doesn't add meaningful context beyond the tool name. This is concise but under-specified; a 4 is appropriate because there is no fluff, yet it could be improved with brief behavioral notes.

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?

For a tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is extremely sparse. It doesn't explain update semantics (partial vs full replacement), required fields, or what a successful update returns. The schema documents parameters but not the operation's overall behavior, leaving an agent under-informed. A score of 2 reflects this significant gap.

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 contains detailed descriptions for all 7 parameters (e.g., name pattern, notify array structure, conditions criteria). Since the description adds no parameter-level detail, the schema is the sole source; according to the rubric, this is a baseline 3 because the schema covers parameter semantics comprehensively.

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 ('Update') and the target resource ('an existing monitor'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_monitor, get_monitor, and delete_monitor by using the 'update' verb. However, it provides no additional scope or detail about what updating entails.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_monitor or get_monitor. No context about prerequisites, partial vs full updates, or exclusions is provided. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and schema.

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