update-slo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the fetch-merge pattern and 'Write-gated' nature. However, it does not specify required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, or what the response contains.

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 concise sentences: first states the action and fields, second explains the merge behavior and write-gating. No redundant information.

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 parameter count (6) and absence of annotations or output schema, the description adequately covers the merge behavior and write restriction. The return value is not mentioned, but the tool is an update and likely returns success or updated SLO; a bit more could be added.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so each parameter's purpose is already clear. The tool description only summarizes the parameters without adding new meaning. 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 tool updates an existing SLO and lists the specific fields that can be updated (name, description, thresholds, monitorIds, tags). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create-slo, delete-slo, and get-slo.

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 explains the merge behavior ('Fetches current SLO first to merge unspecified fields'), which guides usage by clarifying that omitted fields are preserved. However, it does not explicitly contrast with create-slo or mention when this tool should not be used.

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