update-rum-retention-filter

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool updates certain fields, without mentioning any required permissions, side effects, or consequences (e.g., changes are permanent). The description is too minimal for a mutation tool.

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, directly listing the key modifiable fields. It is as concise as possible while conveying the essential purpose. No wasted words.

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 has 7 parameters, 2 required, and no output schema, the description is insufficient for an update operation. It fails to explain that updating is permanent, that the filter ID and app ID are needed, or what happens if invalid values are provided. The context is too sparse.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds a summary of the main updatable fields (name, event type, sample rate, query), but omits 'enabled' and doesn't explain relationships or constraints beyond the schema. This is adequate but not additive.

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 uses the verb 'Update' and specifies the resource 'RUM retention filter', listing specific modifiable fields (name, event type, sample rate, or query). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create-rum-retention-filter, get-rum-retention-filter, and delete-rum-retention-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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state prerequisites, such as needing an existing filter, nor does it exclude situations where create or get would be more appropriate. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name.

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