update_logs_config_metric

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool returns 'the log-based metric object from the request body when the request is successful', which adds some behavioral context about the response. However, it lacks critical details: it doesn't specify required permissions, whether the update is destructive or reversible, error conditions, or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 two sentences and front-loaded with the core action ('Update a specific log-based metric'). The second sentence adds value by describing the return behavior. It's efficient with minimal waste, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., clarifying the update mechanism).

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?

Given the complexity of an update operation, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'log-based metric' entails, how to identify the specific metric, what fields can be updated, or error handling. The return statement helps, but overall, it lacks sufficient context for safe and effective use.

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 input schema has 0 parameters (properties: {}, type: object), indicating parameters are likely handled via the request body. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the lack of explicit parameters. The description doesn't add parameter details, but with 0 parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as there's nothing to compensate for.

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 the tool 'Update[s] a specific log-based metric from your organization' which provides a clear verb ('Update') and resource ('log-based metric'), but it lacks specificity about what aspects can be updated and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_logs_config_archive' or 'update_logs_config_pipeline'. The purpose is understandable but vague in scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing metric), exclusions, or related tools like 'create_logs_config_metrics' or 'delete_logs_config_metric'. Usage is implied only by the verb 'Update', but no explicit context or alternatives are stated.

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