Update DataLens embed

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

With annotations covering safety (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds important behavioral context: the update is a whole replacement, and omitted lists are saved empty. This is crucial and not inferable from annotations or schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the key replacement semantics. No wasted words; the structure is efficient and clear.

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?

Given the rich schema (8 params, 100% coverage), annotations covering safety, and no output schema, the description covers the essential update semantics. It doesn't mention error handling or permissions, but those are minor for this tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning for list-type parameters (deps_ids, private_params, unsigned_params) by explaining that a list left out is saved empty, which affects how agents should construct payloads. This is a useful addition beyond 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 says 'Save an embed as given and return it' and then clarifies replacement, but it never explicitly states this is an update operation or distinguishes it from datalens_embeds_create. The verb 'Save' is ambiguous, and the title carries the update intent rather than the description. An agent might confuse it with a create-like save.

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 a prerequisite workflow ('read it with embeds_list and send back what is to stay') but offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings like datalens_embeds_create or datalens_embeds_delete. It is implied usage rather than clear routing.

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