Update source settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It notes 'Medium risk' but gives no specifics on side effects, reversibility, or what changes occur. It does not explain the role of the 'confirm' parameter or whether changes are immediate.

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 extremely short, almost fragmentary. While front-loaded, it omits essential information. 'Medium risk' adds little context. It is under-specified rather than appropriately concise.

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 tool's moderate complexity (4 params, nested object) and lack of annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not explain the nested source_settings structure, the confirm/overlay flags, or the intended use cases, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke correctly.

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 must compensate for the four parameters. It only mentions 'capture settings' as an example but does not explain source_name, source_settings, confirm, or overlay. This adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 the tool modifies source properties, with an example of capture settings. It distinguishes from creation/deletion but is somewhat generic compared to siblings like set_source_transform and set_source_index which target specific properties.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. It only says 'Modify source properties' and 'Medium risk', which does not help the agent choose among siblings.

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