update_service_level

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It transparently discloses a key behavioral trait: updating the SLI function may not reset the engine's computation pipeline, and persistent issues necessitate deletion and recreation. This adds significant context beyond the input schema, though it could also mention other behaviors like idempotency or authorization requirements.

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 consists of two efficient sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose and required parameter (guid). The second sentence delivers a concise, critical warning. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It explains the core function and the essential behavioral caveat. However, it does not mention whether any fields are immutable or explain the return value, which would improve completeness. The parameter details are sufficiently covered by the 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 coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by noting the potential limitation of updates and suggesting the delete-and-recreate workaround, which provides semantic guidance beyond the schema's structural details. However, it does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond the description, so score is 4.

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 updates a Service Level Indicator (SLI) by its GUID, listing the updatable fields (name, description, event queries, objectives). It uses a specific verb 'Update' and identifies the resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_service_level and delete_service_level.

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 a critical usage guideline: if SLI function change doesn't reset the computation pipeline and numbers remain wrong, users should delete and recreate the SLI instead. This explicitly advises when to avoid repeated updates and suggests an alternative action, though it does not list other sibling tools or provide broader when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use context.

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