update_traffic_limiter

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the obvious 'update' action—no mention of side effects, required permissions, or whether changes are applied immediately. It does not contradict annotations.

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 single, concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse at a glance.

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?

The tool is well-supported by a rich schema, full parameter descriptions, annotations, and an output schema. However, the description lacks any usage guidance or behavioral caveats, so it is minimally viable but not fully informative for an agent deciding when to invoke it.

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%, with each parameter clearly documented. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but this is acceptable given the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting. No extra value is provided by the description.

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 the action ('Update') and the resource ('traffic limiter'), with the scope 'by ID' indicating the target. It is unambiguous and distinct from create/delete tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools or mention alternatives.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that a limiter must already exist, nor does it point to create_traffic_limiter for new limiters or search_traffic_limiters for finding IDs. The schema hints at the source of limiter_id but the description itself lacks this context.

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