Api metrology builtin metric samples partial update

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, but the description adds nothing: no statement of what 'partial update' modifies, whether unspecified fields are preserved, or what the response is. Zero value beyond the structured annotations.

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, but only because it conveys nothing; there is no front-loaded purpose or useful content. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficient structure.

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 mutation tool with no annotations covering semantics, no output schema, and a free-form body parameter, the description provides none of the context needed to call it correctly. It is completely inadequate.

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 0% and the two parameters (id and an opaque body object with additionalProperties:true) are entirely undocumented. The description does nothing to explain the id or the untyped body payload, leaving an agent unable to construct a valid call.

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' is only the snake_case tool identifier repeated verbatim. It restates the name rather than describing what the operation does, so no verb/resource/scope is articulated beyond what the name already implies.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like ..._update, ..._create, or ..._partial_update. Nothing indicates prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative selection criteria.

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