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

Annotations already establish that this is a write operation, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations by stating partial-update semantics and that the updated data source is returned, but it does not disclose side effects such as what happens when type/settings are changed together.

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 tightly written sentences; the action is front-loaded and every clause earns its place. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

Despite a complex settings schema, the combination of concise description, rich input/output schemas, and annotations gives an agent enough to select and use the tool. The main gap is not naming create_data_source as the alternative for new data sources, but this is a minor omission.

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 67%, with useful descriptions for type, schedule, settings, and integration_id, so the schema carries most parameter meaning. The description adds no per-parameter details, though 'Only provided fields will be updated' contextualizes all optional parameters as omittable.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Update a data source by its ID') and immediately clarifies the semantics with 'Only provided fields will be updated (partial update)'. This clearly separates it from creation/list/read/run siblings and from updates to other resources.

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 an existing data source by its required ID, and the partial-update note tells agents they can omit unchanged fields. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to create_data_source as the alternative for new data sources.

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