update_monitor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden yet says nothing about partial-update semantics (are unmentioned fields preserved or reset?), required permissions, reversibility, or the response. For a mutation tool accepting 9 fields, this is a significant gap; only 'existing' hints at a precondition.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no wasted words. It is appropriately sized, though brevity here comes partly at the cost of completeness.

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?

A 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema needs more than one sentence: partial-update behavior, failure modes, and required permissions are all missing. The definition is not sufficient for an agent to call it confidently.

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 the baseline is 3. The description names 4 of 9 fields (name, schedule, grace period, tags) but adds no syntax or format guidance for cron_expression, timezone, or schedule_type beyond what the schema already states.

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 states a specific verb (Update) and resource (an existing cron job monitor) and enumerates representative settings. 'Existing' distinguishes it from create_monitor, though it doesn't address the pause_monitor/delete_monitor alternatives.

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?

There is no indication of when to prefer this tool over siblings like pause_monitor (which also mutates a monitor's state) or when not to use it. The only implicit guidance is 'existing', leaving the agent to infer prerequisites and conditions.

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