honeycomb_marker_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. 'Update an existing marker' implies a mutation operation but doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 concise at just three words, front-loaded with the essential action. There's zero waste or redundancy. While it could benefit from more detail, what's present is perfectly structured and economical.

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 this is a mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what markers are used for in Honeycomb, what fields can be updated, or what the tool returns. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively without additional documentation.

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 schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in 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 'Update an existing marker' clearly states the action (update) and resource (marker), but it's vague about what a marker is in the Honeycomb context and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like honeycomb_marker_create or honeycomb_marker_delete. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity about the marker's role in observability.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing marker ID), when not to use it, or how it differs from honeycomb_marker_create. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection among marker-related operations.

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