Short definitions, followed by simple examples that clearly match the definition, are the best way to be clear.

Unlike how we define most things, definitions of monads often run into:

1. Just a lot of words, often almost stream of consciousness.

2. Use of supporting words used in a technical sense associated with the concept being defined. Completely understood by anyone who already knows the concept. Completely opaque to anyone else. Those words should be defined first, or not used.

3. Incorporating examples into the definition, which creates a kind of inductive menagerie. There are no obvious boundaries of a concept, or clarity shed on what is crucial or what is specific in the examples.

Dictionaries and most people don't define words this way, for good reason. It is a collage, not a definition.

--

I just spent too much time working on this. It is a deceptively difficult problem. I am certainly not critiquing anyone. To be completed later! For myself, if no one else.