silence_monitor

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'temporarily' and clarifies it affects notifications, not the monitor itself, and is for a single monitor. This enriches the behavior beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 concise, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and gives usage guidance in a few tight sentences. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information.

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 moderate complexity, the description covers purpose, use cases, alternative, and scope. An output schema exists, so lack of return-value details is not a gap. The description is sufficient for correct tool selection and invocation.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema; it only refers to 'single monitor' which is already implicit in monitor_id. No additional semantics are provided.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'mute/silence monitor notifications' for a single monitor. It distinguishes from the sibling tool schedule_downtime by noting it is for single monitors, not scheduled/scoped muting.

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?

Explicitly provides when-to-use scenarios ('performing maintenance, testing, or a known issue') and excludes scheduled/scoped silencing, recommending schedule_downtime as the alternative. This is direct guidance with a named alternative.

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