update_capacity_tier

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the mutation endpoint, partial-update support, create/update/delete effects on GA capacity hold inventory tiers, specific 400/403/404 error classes, and the required Bearer token authentication.

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 well structured and front-loaded: purpose first, then endpoint, update behavior, error classes, and authentication. Each section earns its place by giving operationally relevant information without padding.

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?

For a three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers endpoint, partial updates, mutation scope, errors, and auth. It still lacks guidance on sibling alternatives and does not describe the response shape, which is a minor gap given the absence of an output schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by stating partial updates are supported and by clarifying that 'holds' corresponds to GA capacity hold inventory tiers, which is more specific than the schema's generic 'Hold inventory tiers' 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Update capacity tier for an event.' The description also clarifies that it supports partial updates and can create/update/delete GA capacity hold inventory tiers. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings such as get_capacity_tier or update_inventory_tier.

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 endpoint and operational mechanics but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not name alternatives or conditions that would route an agent to get_capacity_tier, update_inventory_tier, or other sibling tools.

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