eds_da_put_source

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

The description discloses the authentication requirement (EDS_DA_TOKEN) and the upsert semantics, but does not elaborate on side effects such as overwriting existing content, directory creation, or response behavior. With no annotations, the description carries the burden but only partially fulfills it.

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 that front-loads the action (Create or update) and resource (authored source). Every word earns its place; no unnecessary detail or repetition.

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 simple write tool with three parameters, the description adequately conveys the core purpose and required authentication. It lacks return value or error expectations, but the absence of an output schema makes this a minor gap; overall the tool context is reasonably complete.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (path, content, contentType) with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's existing parameter descriptions, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb 'Create or update (upsert)' and a specific resource 'the authored source of a Document Authoring document'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like eds_da_get_source and eds_da_delete_source.

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 writing a DA document source, but does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternative tools or exclude any conditions. There is no mention of when not to use it or when a sibling tool would be more appropriate.

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