Create monitor

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

Annotations already declare the non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world profile, but the description adds material context they cannot convey: this kicks off recurring metered runs and consumes credits, defaults are injected by a shared client, and target providerKeys are validated against a filtered catalog. It does not say what happens on partial failure or how runs are later stopped, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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?

Four tight sentences with no filler, and the core action plus endpoint are front-loaded before the constraints. The parenthetical about the shared client is slightly compressed but still earns its place by explaining where defaults originate.

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 an 11-parameter, nested-object, mutating tool with no output schema and 45% schema coverage, the description covers the project scoping, defaults, and provider validation well but says nothing about cadence semantics, promptInstructions, or the free-form settings object. It is adequate but leaves notable holes an agent would have to guess at.

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 only 45%, so the description must compensate, and it does explain the projectSlug/projectId either-or, the type/language/country defaults, and the providerKey constraint. However, three of the four required parameters (name, cadenceMinutes, promptInstructions) and the nested settings object get no explanation in either place, leaving a real gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Create a PromptEden monitor") plus the backing endpoint POST /api/v1/monitors, so an agent can tell it apart from list_monitors and create_project. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling it must not be confused with, so it lands at clear-but-undifferentiated rather than 5.

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?

Gives real prerequisites: projectSlug or projectId must be supplied, and provider keys must come from the filtered list_providers catalog, which implicitly routes the agent to list_providers first. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or comparison against create_project, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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