Plan Guarded Dataset Update

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'GUID preservation' and 'saved readback' but does not explain what these entail, whether the tool mutates data, requires authentication, or has side effects. The 'approved' and 'validate_only' parameters suggest a guarded workflow, but this is not articulated. Minimal transparency.

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, for a tool with 11 parameters and high complexity, brevity comes at the cost of omitted important context. It is front-loaded with key verbs but lacks structure to cover usage and behavior. Neither wasteful nor fully efficient.

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 absence of output schema, 11 parameters (including nested objects), and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. Terms like 'GUID preservation' and 'saved readback' are unexplained. The guarded update pattern is not described, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke the tool correctly in complex scenarios.

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 91%, so the burden on the tool description is lower. The description adds overarching intent but does not enhance understanding of individual parameters beyond the schema's own descriptions. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as it neither harms nor significantly improves parameter understanding.

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 'Plan validateDataset/updateDataset with GUID preservation and saved readback' clearly indicates the tool is for planning a guarded dataset update involving validation and potential update, with attention to GUID fields and readback. The name and description together distinguish it from sibling tools like dl_plan_object_update which are more generic, though sibling differentiation is not explicitly stated.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., dl_plan_object_update, dl_validate_object). The description does not specify prerequisites, when not to use, or context for the guarded pattern. Implied by name but no explicit usage instructions.

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