cdp_update_output_connector

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that this updates an existing connector, but provides no information about permissions required, whether the update is partial or complete, what happens to unspecified fields, error conditions, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and the parameter format. There's zero wasted language, and the information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 mutation tool with 3 parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, and an output schema (whose existence means return values don't need description), the description is insufficient. It doesn't provide enough context about the update operation's behavior, parameter usage, or relationship to sibling tools to enable proper tool selection and invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for all 3 parameters, the description provides minimal help. It mentions 'updated fields as a JSON string' which hints at the 'body' parameter's purpose, but doesn't explain what fields can be updated, the JSON structure, or the purpose of 'connector_id' and 'tenant_id'. The description doesn't adequately compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 action ('Update') and the resource ('an existing output connector'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'cdp_update_output_connector_def' which appears to update connector definitions rather than connectors themselves, missing explicit sibling distinction.

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 like 'cdp_update_output_connector_def' or 'cdp_create_output_connector'. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or appropriate contexts for using this update operation.

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