Api metrology custom metric samples create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds literally nothing on top: no statement of what is created, required auth, or side effects. A bare name repetition adds zero behavioral context even at the lower bar set by 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 technically short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness: the single string is the tool name, so there is nothing front-loaded and no information to be efficient with.

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?

With a mutation tool, a completely opaque 'body' parameter, no output schema, and annotations that only cover safety hints, the description would need to carry substantial payload and behavior information. It provides none, so the definition is inadequate for correct invocation.

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?

There is one parameter ('body') that is a free-form anyOf object/null with 0% schema description coverage and no nested structure documented. The description does not explain what fields the body must contain or what a valid sample payload looks like, leaving the agent with no way to construct a correct 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 literally the tool's identifier repeated: 'api_metrology_custom_metric_samples_create'. It does imply a create action on custom metric samples, but that verb+resource is already encoded in the name, so there is no added clarity and no differentiation from the many sibling metrology_* and *_create tools.

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 guidance whatsoever about when to use this tool, what preconditions apply, or how it relates to siblings like ciso_assistant_api_metrology_custom_metric_samples_batch_action_create or _update. An agent must infer everything from the name alone.

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