spidra_update_monitor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable side-effect context beyond annotations: pausing stops checks but keeps history, and changing sources restarts comparison. It still omits permission requirements and error behavior for missing monitors.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and the partial-update rule. The cross-reference to spidra_create_monitor is efficient but slightly indirect for an agent that must locate that schema separately.

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 10-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the most important operational semantics: partial updates, pause/resume effects, source change behavior, and notification replacement. It leaves gaps on schedule, alertOn, watchFields, and goal/rule removal, but the riskiest behaviors are addressed.

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 description coverage is 60%, so baseline is 3. The description adds behavior for status and clarifies sources/notify replacement, but several parameters (goal, rule, alertOn, schedule, watchFields) get no prose explanation. Some of the notify/sources wording duplicates existing schema descriptions rather than adding new meaning.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: change a monitor, including pause/resume. It distinguishes itself from create/list/delete by function, though it never names a sibling tool explicitly. An agent can identify what it does without opening the 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?

Gives the central usage rule for a PATCH-style tool: 'Send only what changes.' It also explains pause/resume intent and points to spidra_create_monitor for field shapes. It does not state when-not-to-use or name alternatives such as spidra_delete_monitor, so it falls short of a 5.

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