change_dp_datasource

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful side effects: it 'submits changes to Raylight' and 'permanently commits changes to the repository' when save=True. It stops short of stating irreversibility, permission requirements, or what happens on failure, which for a mutating, repository-writing tool would be valuable.

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 opening sentence front-loads the operation and the parameter block is well organized and scannable. It is somewhat long, but nearly every line carries operational information rather than filler.

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 6-parameter mutating tool with an output schema (so return values need no explanation), the description covers the workflow, all parameters, and key side effects. The main remaining gap is guidance on alternatives and failure/rollback behavior, which would round it out.

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, and it does: every one of the six parameters is documented with meaning, defaults ('SameID,SamePath,SameName', save=True), format conventions ('DP0'), and a concrete example for custom_mappings. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Executes Change Data Source on a Web Intelligence Data Provider') and clarifies scope with concrete examples ('migrating UNV to UNX or repointing universes'). This clearly separates it from read-side siblings like get_dp_mapping_proposal and get_dp_specification.

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 implies the usage context (universe migration/repointing) and sketches a workflow, but never states when to choose this over alternatives such as get_dp_mapping_proposal (preview-only) or refresh_dp. An agent must infer that this is the committing tool rather than being told explicitly.

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