mgmt_counter_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Update counter' and references the request body, but does not mention side effects, permissions required, reversibility, idempotency, or what the response contains. This is insufficient for a mutating operation with zero annotation context.

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 extremely short ('Update counter. Body: {"counter": {...}}') but includes an irrelevant documentation URL that distracts from the functional text. The key information is front-loaded, but the URL is unnecessary noise, reducing structural efficiency.

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 four parameters (including a nested object), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not specify required permissions (e.g., owner or admin), the possible response format, error conditions, or the scope of updatable fields. An agent cannot fully anticipate the tool's behavior from this description.

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 the schema already describes all parameters, including the expected body structure. The description adds a redundant example 'Body: {"counter": {...}}' which mirrors the schema, so it provides no additional semantic value beyond the baseline for full coverage.

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 states 'Update counter' which is a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like counter_create and counter_delete. It is concise and immediately understandable, though it doesn't elaborate on what aspects of the counter can be updated, which is a minor gap.

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 (e.g., counter_create for new counters, counter_get for viewing). The name implies updating an existing counter, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' or exclusion of other tools, leaving the agent to infer from the naming convention.

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