update_entity_metrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'Update' without explaining whether metric_items replaces existing metrics, whether specific permissions are needed, how partial updates are handled, or any side effects on the entity. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is as concise as possible while conveying the core purpose.

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?

Despite having an output schema and full parameter descriptions, this is a write operation with no annotations. The description omits critical operational details such as whether metric_items is a full replacement or a merge, the expected item structure, and any entity-type-specific behavior. An agent would need to guess or make assumptions to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already provides basic descriptions for all parameters. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema states, particularly about the structure of metric_items or valid values for entity_type beyond the schema's enum-like text.

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 a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('metrics'), scoped to project, portfolio, or goal. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like update_entity or update_entity_settings, which target different attributes.

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 only states what the tool does, with no guidance on when to choose it over alternatives (e.g., update_entity, update_key_results), no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Usage is merely implied by the tool's name and purpose.

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