update_metric

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

Without any annotations, the description should fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'update' but does not specify whether the update is partial or full replacement, if idempotent, or what happens on success/failure. No side effects or permission requirements are 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 a single sentence, which is concise. However, it is too sparse to be useful; it does not provide enough information to justify its brevity. A concise but informative description would score higher.

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 two parameters (metric_id and metric_data) and no output schema, the description should explain the data format and return behavior. It fails to do so, making it incomplete for proper usage.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description adds no meaning to the parameters metric_id and metric_data. The description does not explain what metric_data should contain or the format expected, leaving the agent with only parameter names to infer meaning.

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 metric in OpenMetadata). It distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like create_metric, delete_metric, and get_metric, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_metric or delete_metric. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as requiring an existing metric, or conditions under which the update should be performed.

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