Update Project Observation Type

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

The description adds little beyond the annotations. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutating) and destructiveHint=false (non-destructive). The description merely states it updates and returns the modified object, which is standard for PATCH operations. It does not disclose potential side effects, authorization requirements, or rate limits. Given annotations carry the safety profile, the description's added value is minimal.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences plus API reference. It is front-loaded with the action and key details (partial update, return behavior, required params). Every sentence serves a purpose, though the API endpoint line is informational but not essential for selection or invocation.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (update with 6 params, no output schema), the description is adequate but not comprehensive. It explains the action and required parameters, but lacks details on behavior when the observation type does not exist, errors, or the structure of the modified object. Since there is no output schema, describing the return value could improve completeness.

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%, so the input schema already fully documents each parameter. The description only reiterates that project_id and id are required, which is already indicated in the schema. It does not add any new meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 clearly states it updates an existing Project Observation Type, using a specific verb and resource. It mentions that only supplied fields are changed, which clarifies the partial update behavior. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create or delete observation types, though the name itself hints at the distinction.

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 tells when to use the tool ('update an existing Observations') and lists required parameters, but it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives. For example, it could note that to create a new observation type, one should use the create tool. This gap limits the agent's ability to decide between tools.

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