Update a source

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose the important partial-update semantics ('Omitted fields are unchanged'), which is real value for a mutation tool. It says nothing about auth requirements, failure behavior, or whether changes are reversible.

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 tight sentences with the partial-update rule front-loaded and, in fact, stated as the second sentence where it matters most. No filler, nothing that fails to earn its place.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 30% schema coverage, this is thin: it omits which fields are updatable, whether id-like fields (doi, url) can be changed, and any failure or permission behavior.

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 only 30% across 10 parameters, so the schema leaves seven fields undocumented. The description offers only the generic phrase 'bibliographic fields' with no per-field meaning, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 verb set ('correct or enrich') and a clear resource ('a source's bibliographic fields'), which cleanly separates it from update_note, add_source, and get_source. It lacks any explicit sibling reference, but the resource scope is unambiguous.

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?

'Correct or enrich' implies this is for fixing or augmenting an existing source rather than creating one, which implicitly distinguishes it from add_source. Nothing states when to prefer update over re-adding, preconditions, or what happens if the source id is unknown.

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