update-check

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. It merely states 'Update' without revealing whether updates are partial (PATCH-like) or full replacements, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on invalid tokens, or what response format to expect. This is a significant transparency gap 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?

The description is a single, focused sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. It wastes no words and is appropriately sized for a tool with a self-explanatory name and rich schema.

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?

This is a complex mutation tool with 14 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides almost no contextual information beyond the basic action, leaving the agent without guidance on return values, error handling, or update semantics. It is far from complete for such a feature-rich tool.

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?

The input schema provides detailed descriptions for all 14 parameters, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific information, but the schema already handles that responsibility. A baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema covers parameter semantics adequately.

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 tool's action ('Update') and resource ('an existing monitoring check'), distinguishing it from create-check and delete-check through the word 'existing'. It is specific and unambiguous despite its brevity.

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 like create-check or delete-check. It lacks context on prerequisites, such as requiring an existing check token, or scenarios that warrant update over recreation.

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