Api metrology metric instances update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond that — notably it does not say what the opaque 'body' replaces, whether omitted fields are cleared or preserved (the key distinction versus partial_update), or what happens on unknown ids.

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?

Extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — the single token carries no information an agent did not already have from the tool name. Nothing is front-loaded because there is nothing to front-load.

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 write tool with a fully opaque body, no output schema, no annotations explaining semantics of the write, and 0% schema coverage. For a full-replace update on metrology metric instances this leaves the agent unable to call it correctly or safely.

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. 'id' is undocumented and 'body' is a free-form anyOf object with additionalProperties=true and no shape at all, so the agent has no way to know what fields to send. The description provides zero compensating information, which is the critical gap for a mutation tool.

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 the literal tool slug restated — 'api_metrology_metric_instances_update' — with no verb-and-resource phrasing an agent could parse. It does not distinguish this from the sibling partial_update, batch_action, or create endpoints on the same metric_instances resource.

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 on when to call this versus ciso_assistant_api_metrology_metric_instances_partial_update, _create, _destroy, or _batch_action_create, all of which sit on the same resource. The agent must infer the distinction from the suffix alone.

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