pvsyst_update_project_sources

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose important behavior: full-project SHA preconditions and byte-identical backups. It also notes that existing MET origin metadata in variants remains historical, though it omits permission requirements and failure-mode behavior.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action and followed by important behavioral caveats. There is no filler; every sentence contributes to understanding the operation.

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?

For a complex mutation tool with four required parameters, a nested object, no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is not complete enough. It explains some behavior but leaves the most important parameter semantics unexplained.

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 0%, so the description needs to compensate, but it only indirectly references SIT/MET concepts. It does not explain the project parameter, the expected_files object, required SHA format, or how site_name and met_name are interpreted.

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 states a specific mutation: persist a workspace SIT/MET pair across the PRJ and all VC snapshots. It is clear to a domain user, though it relies on jargon and does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling restore_project_sources tool.

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?

It does not say when to use this tool versus restore_project_sources, update_project_parameters, or other source-related operations. The intended use is only implied by the purpose statement, with no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-selection guidance.

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