update_source

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It merely states 'Update a source' without detailing side effects, idempotency, permission requirements, or whether updates are partial or full replacements. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 very short (three lines), but it is not efficiently informative. It repeats schema information without adding critical behavioral or usage context. A more structured approach with front-loaded key details would improve usability.

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 complexity of an update operation (partial vs full, optional fields), the description is inadequate. It does not clarify the update semantics, return behavior, or error conditions. With no annotations and an output schema present, the description should provide more context to compensate.

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 description adds some semantic value over the schema by labeling title as 'Optional new title' and topics as 'Optional list of topics', but it does not explain whether topics replaces or appends to existing topics. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description partially compensates but remains incomplete.

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 'Update a source' clearly states the verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_source, delete_source, and list_sources. However, it could be more specific about what aspects of the source can be updated (e.g., metadata).

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, such as create_source or other update tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.

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