Datasets Update Data Model

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety envelope is partly covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the operation is a FULL replacement via PUT, meaning any portion of the model not included in the payload is overwritten. This is exactly the kind of context that is not visible in the annotations, though the full-replacement semantics sit in mild tension with destructiveHint=false and no auth or irreversibility detail is given.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the action, the target resource, and the replacement semantics. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be documented. For a two-parameter mutation tool with annotations covering safety, the description supplies the key missing fact (full replacement), but leaves out prerequisites such as retrieving the existing spec first and any permission requirements.

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% for both parameters, so the description carries the burden. It partially compensates by identifying what `spec` holds (a JSON code representation, i.e., the code-form model) and that it is transmitted whole via PUT; it says nothing about `data_model_id` or the expected structure/keys of the nested spec object.

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 and resource ("Update an existing data model") plus the input medium ("from a JSON code representation"), which separates it from datasets_create_data_model and the read-only datasets_get_data_model_spec. It does not, however, explicitly name a sibling or distinguish itself from adjacent mutators like datasets_swap_data_model_sources.

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 versus alternatives such as datasets_swap_data_model_sources for source changes or datasets_create_data_model for new models, and no mention of the prerequisite that a full replacement normally requires first fetching the current spec via datasets_get_data_model_spec. Usage can only be inferred from "Update an existing data model".

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