Update ai tracking prompt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false. The description adds real behavioral context beyond those: edits create immutable revisions, budget consent is explicit, and retry keys are stable. However, phrases like 'explicit budget consent' and 'stable retry keys' are cryptic and unexplained, so the value added is partial.

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 only three sentences and not bloated, but it is opaque rather than front-loaded: the first sentence should state the action and resource, and instead the most useful constraint (no automatic paid baseline) is buried at the end.

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 nested provenance objects warrants clearer scoping, but the description never says what actually changes, which parameters are optional, or how revisions interact with the historical samples. With no output schema, the description leaves meaningful gaps.

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 89%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter including the nested generation_reference and provider_dataset_reference objects. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Manage project-scoped AI tracking,' which names a domain rather than a specific verb+resource action. It never states that it updates an AI tracking prompt, and with siblings like create_ai_tracking_prompt and archive_ai_tracking_prompt in the same family, an agent gets no help distinguishing it from them.

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 when-to-use guidance and no reference to alternatives such as create_ai_tracking_prompt or archive_ai_tracking_prompt. The closing line 'This does not start an automatic paid baseline' is a single negative scoping hint, which is the only usage signal present.

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