update-apm-retention-filter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states what fields are updated but doesn't disclose possible side effects, required permissions, or behavior if the filter does not exist. For a mutation tool, this is minimal disclosure.

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 sentence of 10 words, very concise and front-loaded with the key information. No wasted words, but it could be slightly expanded to include usage context without losing conciseness.

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 (5 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It lacks information about required permissions, response format, or any important behavioral notes. It provides only the minimum to convey the action.

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. The description merely lists parameter names (name, query, rate, enabled state) without adding any new semantic meaning or usage context beyond what the schema provides.

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) and resource (APM retention filter), and specifies the fields (name, query, rate, enabled state). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create, delete, and get by implying modification of an existing filter.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use, or direct to sibling tools like create-apm-retention-filter or delete-apm-retention-filter for other operations.

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