Api metrology custom metric samples update

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known without the description. The description adds no context whatsoever about what gets mutated, required permissions, or side effects, so there is no value beyond the structured fields.

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 a single short string with no waste, but that is because it contains no information rather than because it is economical. Under-specification, not conciseness, is the problem.

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 a free-form body, no output schema, no annotations explaining semantics, and zero parameter documentation. Nothing tells an agent what a custom metric sample is, what fields the body accepts, or what the response contains; the definition is unusable 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and both parameters are opaque: 'id' is an untyped string and 'body' is a free-form object with additionalProperties true. The description does not name any field, clarify whether 'body' is a full replacement vs. patch, or indicate the sample payload shape.

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 snake_case name repeated back ('api_metrology_custom_metric_samples_update'), with no verb, resource, or scope stated in natural language. An agent can guess it updates custom metric samples from the name alone, but the description itself adds nothing beyond the title.

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?

No guidance at all on when to use this tool versus the many siblings (custom_metric_samples_create, partial_update, update, batch_action_create, etc.). The distinction between 'update' and 'partial_update' in particular is left entirely to inference from the tool name.

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