update_demand_source

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely restates the tool's name and gives no information about side effects, authentication needs, whether the update is partial or full, error behavior, or return values. This is essentially a tautology of the tool name.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action. There is no superfluous wording or repetition. It earns its place even if minimal.

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?

This is a mutation tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, yet the description does not clarify update semantics (e.g., whether omitted fields are preserved), expected response format, or any prerequisites beyond having an ID. This is a significant gap for a tool with optional fields and no annotations or output schema to supplement it.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with all seven parameters having meaningful descriptions. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter context, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents parameters. No points deducted for missing info that is already in 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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and specific resource ('demand source'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_demand_source, delete_demand_source, or get_demand_source. It directly states the operation and target without ambiguity.

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 exclusions, prerequisites, or related tools (e.g., use create_demand_source for new records). The only hint is the word 'existing', implying it is not for creation, but this is not explicit.

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