update_episode_monitor

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

Annotations already convey mutation (readOnlyHint=false), idempotency, and non-destructiveness. The description adds one useful behavioral trait: the body schema is dynamic and must be discovered via GET or /schema. It does not describe what the monitor update actually changes, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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 short and well-structured: action, endpoint, then parameters. There is no filler, and the critical body-discovery guidance is placed right with the body parameter. It is slightly minimal, but conciseness itself is not a problem.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering mutation/idempotency, the description is borderline adequate. It tells the agent how to learn the request shape but not what this endpoint semantically does or when to select it over update_episode_by_id, which is a real gap given the large sibling set.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'body' is an opaque request payload and tells the agent to read GET/schema to discover expected fields, which is genuinely helpful given additionalProperties is true. 'include_images' only gets the label 'Query parameter' with no additional semantic value, so the compensation is only partial.

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 states the action and resource ('Update Episode') and pinpoints the exact endpoint PUT /api/v3/episode/monitor, so the target is identifiable. However, it never clarifies what 'monitor' means or differentiates this from sibling tools like update_episode_by_id, leaving some ambiguity.

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 rather than alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of sibling update tools. The only instruction—read the matching GET or /schema endpoint—concerns constructing the body, not tool selection.

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