update-rum-metric

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

The description mentions updating specific fields, which implies a write operation (consistent with readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true). However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as idempotency, error handling, or effects on existing data beyond listing the updateable fields.

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 14 words, front-loaded with action and resource, with no unnecessary words. It is highly concise and well-structured.

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?

For a moderate-complexity update tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose but lacks details about return values, error conditions, or the overall effect on the metric. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

All four parameters have schema descriptions, resulting in 100% schema coverage. The description lists the same fields (filter, group-by, percentile) without adding new meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, so the 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'update', the resource 'rum-based metric', and the specific settings that can be changed: filter, group-by, or percentile. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create-rum-metric or delete-rum-metric.

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 implies usage for modifying an existing metric's configuration, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide prerequisites or conditions for use.

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