probely_update_target

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

Without annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses key behaviors: labels are reused/created automatically, scanning_agent_id can be removed with empty string, and auth parameters have specific structures. However, it does not mention idempotency, permission requirements, or whether the update is partial or full replacement. More behavioral context would be beneficial.

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 with a clear purpose, bullet points, and examples for different authentication methods. It is somewhat verbose with repeated credential URI notes, but the organization helps readability. Could be more concise, but effective overall.

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 no annotations and a complex 12-parameter tool, the description covers major usage scenarios, including labels, scanning agents, and authentication types. It does not mention the return value (though an output schema exists), nor does it address idempotency or concurrency. For a mutation tool, some operational context is missing, but the description is still fairly complete.

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 50% (6/12 parameters have descriptions). The global description adds significant meaning for complex parameters like labels, scanning_agent_id, and authentication parameters, including examples and credential URI format. Simpler parameters like name, url, desc rely on schema alone, but overall the description compensates well for the gaps.

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 'Update a target' which is a clear verb+resource combination. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like probely_update_target_settings by focusing on target properties such as labels, scanning agent, and authentication configurations. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from all siblings, so score is 4.

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?

Provides extensive guidance on using labels, scanning_agent_id, and the distinction between general headers/cookies and authentication parameters. Includes examples for Basic Auth and API auth. However, does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternative tools like probely_update_target_settings, so score is 4.

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