edubase_post_metrics_custom

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, indicating a non-idempotent write operation that is not destructive. The description repeats 'Update' but adds no additional behavioral context—no mention of side effects, authentication, rate limits, or what happens on duplicate or conflicting values. Since annotations carry the burden, the description contributes little extra transparency.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It could briefly mention scope or effect without losing conciseness, but as is, it is efficient and to the point. The trade-off between brevity and completeness is reasonable for a simple update operation.

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 low complexity (2 required parameters, no nested objects, output schema present), the description is minimally complete for an agent to invoke the tool. However, it lacks context on whether the metric must pre-exist, error handling, and the scope of 'custom' (e.g., user-specific vs. system-wide). The output schema exists, so return value documentation is not required, but additional usage hints would improve completeness.

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 100% for the two parameters ('metric' and 'value'), with detailed schema descriptions (e.g., value accepts increments with a + prefix). The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema already provides. Per guidelines, high coverage (>80%) sets a baseline of 3, which is appropriate here.

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 'Update a custom metric' clearly states the verb (update) and the resource (custom metric), matching the tool's name and title. There are no sibling tools with a similar name or purpose that cause confusion, so the differentiation is adequate. However, the phrase 'custom metric' remains slightly vague without further context on what constitutes a custom metric.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conditions (e.g., whether the metric must already exist). Among many sibling tools, this is a standalone metrics tool, but the description still offers no usage context, leaving the agent to infer intent solely from the name.

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