misp_update_event

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the behavioral scope (metadata update) and importantly clarifies that publishing is not included. It does not contradict any annotations (none exist). A slightly higher score would require mentioning side effects or permissions, but the description is adequate.

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?

Two sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: first defines the tool's action and scope, second provides a critical usage guideline (no publishing). No wasted words, very efficient.

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?

The tool is simple and the description covers its purpose and a key nuance (separate publishing). With no output schema, a note about return value might be helpful but is not critical. Almost complete for the tool's complexity.

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 each parameter well (including enum meanings). The description adds grouping ('info, threat level, analysis status') which provides mild additional context but is not essential. Baseline 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'update', the resource 'MISP event', and specifies the metadata fields (info, threat level, analysis status). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool misp_publish_event by noting that publishing is separate.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool (to update event metadata) and when not to (for publishing), directing to an alternative sibling tool (misp_publish_event). This provides clear usage boundaries.

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