Update monitor

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

Annotations already declare it non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent and open-world. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: `null` means every column, and null is refused on monitors on a legacy enrichment (response carries `legacy`). It doesn't state auth/permission needs or reversibility of a column reset, so it stops short of 5.

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?

Front-loaded one-liner followed by precise parameter-to-behavior mapping, then examples. Three JSON examples are somewhat redundant (pause/resume are trivially obvious) but they remain short and directly illustrative, so nothing is egregiously wasted.

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?

All four parameters are covered, the legacy refusal edge case is documented, and with no output schema the description needn't explain returns. The absence of any note on permissions or the shape of a successful update response is a minor 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema: semantics of `null` for `columns`, the legacy-enrichment refusal rule, and the pause/resume semantics of `enabled`. `webhook_url` is only described as a replacement, matching the thin schema description.

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 first line names the specific verb (update) and resource (monitor), then enumerates the three concrete operations: pause, resume, repoint. An agent can tell this apart from create_monitor/list_monitors/get_monitor without opening any schema.

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?

It explicitly maps each parameter to a behavior: `enabled: false` pauses, `enabled: true` resumes, `webhook_url` replaces the delivery URL, `columns` changes filled columns. It gives clear operational context but does not name when to prefer a sibling or list preconditions/exclusions.

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