Resume monitor

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: 'The first check runs immediately rather than after the usual interval,' which is not present in annotations. It also reinforces idempotency with 'Safe to call on a monitor that is already running.' No contradictions.

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 concise sentences, each adding essential information: purpose, the immediate-check behavior, and idempotency. There is no redundant or verbose language; it is front-loaded and efficient.

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 simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to call it, and the immediate-check behavior. The idempotency note is critical. It does not need to describe return values given the output schema, and error handling is not required for this context.

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?

The schema fully describes the id parameter ('Monitor id to resume, as returned by list_monitors.') with 100% coverage. The description does not add extra meaning or examples beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high coverage. The baseline of 3 applies.

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 explicitly states the action: 'Start checking a paused monitor again' with the nuance of using its previous configuration. It clearly distinguishes from sibling pause_monitor and other monitor creation tools. The verb+resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

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 clearly implies when to use: when a monitor is paused and needs to be resumed. It also notes 'Safe to call on a monitor that is already running,' indicating idempotent usage. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like create_* or state when not to use it (e.g., if the monitor does not exist), but given the sibling context, the usage is well implied.

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