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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is documented for the description. The description adds genuinely new context by stating that the update is partial and that omitted fields are left intact, which is not in the annotations or schema. It does not, however, warn that the destructive hint implies overwriting existing configuration or mention any permission or validation constraints.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, with the scoping rule before the field list, which is good structure. But the second sentence is wasted because the sole 'field' it names does not exist in the schema, so the space is spent on misinformation rather than a real enumeration.

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 destructive, partial-merge mutation tool with four parameters, 25% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description should enumerate the three configurable fields and their defaults (false, true, 10). It leaves them entirely undocumented and substitutes an unrelated tool name, leaving an agent unable to know what it can change without reading the raw schema.

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 only 25%, with the single documented parameter ('id') described merely as 'ID.', so the description must carry the load for keepFailingRows, waitWhenDatabaseIsBusy, and maxGigabytesScannedPerCheck. Instead of naming any of those, it cites 'oneuptime_describe_resource', which is a sibling tool name rather than a field, actively misleading an agent about what can be set. The one valuable note, 'only the fields sent change', does not compensate for three undocumented parameters plus a false field list.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Update one Data Observability Setting by ID', which separates it from create_data_observability_setting, delete_data_observability_setting, and get_data_observability_setting by name alone. The trailing 'Fields: ...' clause is unhelpful and inaccurate, but the core purpose is still 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites (for example, that an existing ID is required), and no routing to siblings such as oneuptime_describe_resource for discovery. The only procedural hint is the partial-merge rule, 'only the fields sent change', which helps an agent call the tool but does not explain when to call it.

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