Api metrology builtin metric samples update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing further — no mention of what the body overwrites, whether unspecified fields are cleared, auth requirements, or side effects of updating builtin (possibly system-managed) samples.

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 is under-specified rather than efficient; there is no front-loaded statement of purpose or scope.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, an undocumented free-form body, and no annotations explaining semantics beyond generic hints. An agent cannot confidently construct a correct call from this definition.

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% for both parameters, so the description must compensate and instead says nothing. The required 'id' and an opaque 'body' anyOf object with no documented fields leave the agent guessing what a builtin metric sample payload looks like.

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 simply the snake_case tool name repeated verbatim, restating 'api_metrology_builtin_metric_samples_update' with no added verb/resource explanation. An agent can infer a PUT-style update of builtin metric samples from the name alone, but the description itself contributes nothing beyond that.

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 statement of when to use this versus ciso_assistant_api_metrology_builtin_metric_samples_partial_update (PATCH) or _create. The update-vs-partial_update distinction is a real trap here and the description is silent on it.

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