set_data_source

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that agent_uuid is a real PostgreSQL database, but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether this creates or updates a binding), permissions required, or what happens to existing bindings. As a mutation tool ('set'), this is a significant transparency gap.

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 appropriately sized: a one-line summary followed by a structured Args list. No fluff or redundant information. The only slight inefficiency is that the Args section could potentially be condensed, but it remains clear and 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?

The description is adequate for a simple 'set' operation but lacks broader context. It does not mention how this relates to sync jobs, whether the operation is idempotent, or what happens after a binding is created. Since an output schema exists, return values are covered elsewhere, but the description still misses important behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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 includes an Args section that explains every parameter: project_uuid (UUID of the project), agent_uuid (UUID of the agent, noted as a real PostgreSQL database), schema_uuid (UUID of the schema into which data is imported), and is_active (whether the binding is active). This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare types, and with 0% schema description coverage, this full parameter documentation is valuable.

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's purpose: 'Привязать проект к агенту-источнику данных' (Attach a project to a data source agent). This uses a specific verb (attach) and resource (project + agent), and the name 'set_data_source' distinguishes it from related siblings like get_data_source, delete_data_source, and test_connection.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. For example, it does not clarify that this is the setup step before using sync jobs or how it relates to get_data_source or delete_data_source.

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