Api metrology metric definitions partial update

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description is not required to carry the safety profile. But it adds zero context of its own — no mention of what fields can be patched, whether omitted fields are preserved, or permission requirements — and does not contradict the 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 brevity here is under-specification rather than discipline — a single underscore-joined identifier is not a useful sentence and front-loads nothing about behavior or inputs.

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 endpoint with an entirely opaque 'body' parameter, no output schema, and only minimal annotations, the description should explain the patchable payload and partial-update semantics. It explains nothing, so an agent cannot safely call this tool.

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% across two parameters: 'id' is an untyped-in-prose string with no explanation of format, and 'body' is a free-form additionalProperties object with no field list. The description supplies none of this, leaving the agent unable to know what payload to construct.

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 a literal restatement of the tool name, differing only in separator style. It conveys no verb-plus-resource framing beyond what the identifier already implies, and gives no scope or object detail for 'metric definitions'.

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 when-to-use guidance at all. The sibling set contains both ..._metric_definitions_update and ..._metric_definitions_partial_update, and the description does nothing to explain when partial update is preferred over full update, create, or destroy.

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