Update ramp

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds that this targets an existing ramp, but it does not resolve the important ambiguity of whether 'new points' replace the entire ramp definition or are appended, which matters for a mutation tool even when idempotency is hinted.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler and the action front-loaded. However, the phrase 'new points' is terse to the point of ambiguity, so it is efficient but not maximally informative.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, this is the minimum viable level. The description leaves the replace-vs-append semantics unstated and offers no confirmation of what the operation returns or affects.

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 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema ('RAMP ID to update', 'New [time, value] pairs'). The description adds no format, ordering, or unit detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update an existing ramp') and clarifies the payload is new points. It is distinguishable from add_ramp/remove_ramp by the word 'existing', though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., the ramp must already exist), and no reference to the alternative tools add_ramp or remove_ramp. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'existing ramp'.

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