update-slo-correction

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only lists updatable fields without explaining update semantics (e.g., partial vs. full replacement, idempotency, permissions, return value). This is insufficient.

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 that is concise and front-loaded. It could potentially include more structure (e.g., highlighting required parameter), but it is efficient and free of waste.

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?

With 8 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context. It only mentions three parameter groups, omitting timezone, rrule, and the required sloCorrectionId. It does not describe return behavior or prerequisites.

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 provides full parameter descriptions. The tool description adds minimal value by listing a subset of parameters (category, time range, description) but does not elaborate on format or constraints beyond the schema.

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 the resource (existing SLO correction), and specifies the updatable fields (category, time range, description). It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like create-slo-correction, delete-slo-correction, etc.

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 existing SLO corrections, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create, delete, get). No exclusions or context are provided.

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