update_alert_monitor

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

The description goes beyond annotations by explaining overwrite semantics ('Overwrites given fields; rest is unchanged') and the irreversible nature of changes ('no undo tool... not recoverable'). This adds critical behavioral context that complements the destructiveHint annotation without contradicting it.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by usage context and a critical warning. 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?

The tool has a full input schema and an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. It covers the key behavioral aspects (overwrite, non-recoverability) and usage scenarios, making it complete for an agent to correctly invoke the 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds meaningful parameter semantics by clarifying that only provided fields are overwritten and others remain unchanged, which is essential for correct usage. It also maps example actions (adjust thresholds, notifications) to parameter use.

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 tool's function: 'Modify an existing monitor's configuration.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like create_alert_monitor and silence_monitor by focusing on modification. The added detail about overwriting given fields further clarifies scope.

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?

The description provides a 'Use this when' section listing specific scenarios (adjust thresholds, change notifications, update alert logic), giving clear usage context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is sufficient for an agent to choose this tool over create or silence tools.

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