create_alert_monitor

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

Annotations already convey that this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) with side effects (openWorldHint=true). The description adds the suggestion to validate first, implying the tool may not fully validate query syntax, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as whether creation is immediate or if there are any rate limits.

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 compact and well-structured: a clear opening sentence, a 'Use this when' section, and three bulleted examples. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 complexity (7 parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, and how to structure queries. It does not explain return values, but the output schema handles that. Minor gaps like authentication or rate limits are not addressed, but these are less critical for a creation tool.

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 100%, but the description adds meaningful query examples for metric, log, and APM formats that go beyond the schema's generic reference to 'examples above'. This practical guidance helps agents construct valid queries, raising the value above the baseline of 3.

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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'monitor', and specifies the types of data it alerts on (metrics, logs, APM). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling validate_monitor by suggesting validation first.

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?

Explicit 'Use this when' scenarios are given (get notified, set up alerting, monitor SLAs), and validate_monitor is named as an alternative to check query syntax first. However, it does not explicitly state when to use update_alert_monitor or silence_monitor instead, so it falls slightly short of a perfect score.

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