Api metrology custom metric samples partial update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds nothing beyond them. It does not say what fields the partial update accepts, what happens to unspecified fields, whether permissions are required, or what the response looks like, while for a mutation tool this context is essential.

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 single phrase contains no waste, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficiency. There is no front-loaded purpose statement, so nothing is earned by the length.

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 write operation with an untyped body object, no output schema and no annotation coverage of payload semantics, the description is completely inadequate. An agent has no way to know what a 'custom metric sample' is, what a partial update body should contain, or how it differs from the create/update siblings.

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 description provides no parameter information at all. The 'body' parameter is an untyped free-form object (anyOf object/null, additionalProperties true) with no documented shape, and the 'id' path parameter is entirely unexplained. The description neither explains the body envelope convention nor names any updatable field.

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 operation identifier repeated verbatim ('api_metrology_custom_metric_samples_partial_update'), which restates the name and title rather than describing what the tool does. An agent can only infer 'partially update a custom metric sample' by parsing the machine-generated name itself. It offers no elaboration on what a custom metric sample is or what a partial update means here.

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 about when to use this tool versus the many siblings, such as metrology_custom_metric_samples_update (full update) or metrology_custom_metric_samples_create. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no context are given.

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