update_metric_threshold

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'update' which implies mutation but does not mention authorization needs, idempotency, side effects on other metrics, or whether setting threshold to null removes it. The description adds minimal value beyond the tool name.

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 concise sentence with only 8 words, containing no fluff or repetition. It efficiently communicates 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?

Given the complexity of the tool (5 parameters, 4 required, mutation with no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is too brief. It lacks details on the effect of null thresholdValue, the meaning of metricShortcode values, and the expected outcome. The existing output schema partially mitigates the need for return value explanation, but the description should provide more operational context.

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 already provides full descriptions for all 5 parameters (100% coverage). The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what is in the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the action (update) and the object (threshold for a specific quality metric). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like update_metric_setting or quality_metrics, though it does not explicitly call out the distinction.

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, nor are there any prerequisites or when-not-to-use conditions stated. The description simply states what it does without contextual usage advice.

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