Update DataLens connection

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world). The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond them: only the supplied fields change while the rest stay as-is, and the call returns an acknowledgement. It says nothing about permissions, what happens on invalid field values, or concurrency, so it adds some but not rich context.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the action and the mutation semantics with no wasted words. It is arguably too terse for the underlying nested-schema complexity, but the sentence itself is efficient.

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?

Covers the minimum: what changes, partial-update behavior, and the acknowledgement return. However, for a mutation tool with a nested, externally-defined data object and no output schema, it does not tell the agent that the ConnectionUpdate schema must be resolved via schema_get, nor what the acknowledgement contains.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'fields given' phrasing aligns with the schema's partial-update note, but adds no new syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already documents, including the pointer to schema_get for ConnectionUpdate.

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 combination ('Change the fields ... of a connection') and correctly implies a partial update. It is distinguishable from siblings like datalens_connections_create/delete/get by resource, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus datalens_connections_create or the schema_get lookup the nested data parameter requires, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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