update-slo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses write-gated access and the merge strategy (fetches current SLO first to preserve unspecified fields). This is sufficient for a non-destructive update, though rate limits or detailed auth are not mentioned.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose and fields, the second adds behavioral context (write-gated and merge). Every sentence is meaningful and front-loaded, with 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main behavioral aspects (update fields, merge, write-gated). It lacks details on error handling or atomicity, but is fairly complete for this moderate complexity tool.

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 the baseline is 3. The main description merely lists the same fields as the schema, adding no additional semantics. However, it does hint at the merge behavior which relates to omitted fields.

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 action (Update) and resource (existing SLO), and lists specific fields (name, description, thresholds, monitorIds, or tags). It distinguishes from siblings like create-slo and delete-slo by specifying 'existing' and the merge behavior.

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 mentions 'Write-gated' implying authorization context, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to sibling tools like create-slo or get-slo. The merge behavior is implied but not explicitly contrasted.

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