SupplySources_updateSupplySource

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the tool 'Runs in your Kuudo deployment, not here,' which is a useful behavioral context, but it does not mention side effects, permissions, reversibility, or response behavior for a mutation operation. 'Catalog entry' adds mystery rather than 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 short and mostly to the point, but the front-loaded 'Catalog entry' sentence is opaque and does little to orient the agent. The main action only appears in the final sentence, so the structure is not optimally organized.

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 no annotations, no output schema, an effectively unconstrained input schema, and a sibling set that includes create/get/archive/updateStatus, the description is incomplete. It neither explains what parameters are needed nor distinguishes why this update tool exists alongside updateSupplySourceStatus.

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 is empty but allows additionalProperties, so the agent gets no parameter names or required fields. The description adds high-level semantic categories ('configuration and capabilities') but no concrete keys such as a supply source identifier, leaving the agent guessing what to pass despite the 0-parameter signal.

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 core sentence 'Update the configuration and capabilities of a supply source' provides a clear verb and resource. It is distinguishable from sibling 'updateSupplySourceStatus' because it targets configuration/capabilities rather than status, though the opening 'Catalog entry' is confusing and obscures the actual purpose.

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 given on when to use this tool versus createSupplySource, getSupplySource, archiveSupplySource, or updateSupplySourceStatus. The note about running in the Kuudo deployment describes environment context, not usage conditions or exclusions.

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