Update metrics history retention setting

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, which convey that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the verb 'update'—it does not state whether the change is immediate, whether it affects only future data, whether it requires specific permissions, or what the side effects are. Given the annotations carry the safety profile, the description's lack of extra behavior disclosure earns a low score.

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 description is a short, front-loaded phrase, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It simply restates the tool title with no structure or elaboration. It does not add any information beyond the name, so it cannot be considered an efficient, informative description—it is a bare label. No attempt is made to organize or layer the content.

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 tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the retention setting controls, how the value is interpreted, whether the setting is global or per-host, or what happens if the parameter is omitted. The sibling getter exists but is not referenced. An agent calling this tool would lack critical context for choosing a correct value.

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?

The schema has one parameter, 'metricsHistoryRetentionDays', with zero description coverage (0%). The tool description does not mention this parameter at all. With no schema description and no complementary note in the description, the agent has no information about units, acceptable ranges beyond the schema's merely numeric bounds, meaning of omitted values, or whether larger or smaller numbers increase retention. The description entirely fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the corresponding getter tool, nor does it explain under what conditions one should update the retention setting, prerequisites, or effects compared to other update tools. Usage is only implied by the verb 'update', which is insufficient for an agent to make a confident selection among many sibling tools.

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