update_backtest

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true, indicating safe retries, but the description adds minimal behavioral context. It specifies that only 'name or note' can be updated, which clarifies the scope of changes, but doesn't address permissions, side effects, or error conditions. No contradiction with annotations exists, but the description doesn't enrich beyond the idempotency hint.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Update the name or note of a backtest'). There is no wasted wording, and it directly communicates the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), annotations (idempotentHint), and a simple purpose, the description is somewhat complete but lacks details on parameter requirements and usage context. For a mutation tool with 0% schema coverage, it should better explain the input structure and when to apply updates.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only mentions 'name or note' without explaining the required 'projectId' and 'backtestId' parameters. It adds some meaning by specifying updatable fields, but leaves key identifiers undocumented. With 0% coverage, this partial compensation results in a baseline score.

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 ('backtest'), specifying what fields can be modified ('name or note'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_backtest' or 'delete_backtest' by focusing on modification rather than creation or deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'update_project' or 'update_optimization' which might have similar naming patterns.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing backtest), exclusions (e.g., not for updating other backtest attributes), or refer to sibling tools like 'read_backtest' for checking current values before update. Usage is implied by the verb 'Update' but lacks explicit context.

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