Elements Swap Template Sources

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the connection-vs-table swap distinction, but says nothing about reversibility, whether source swap policies gate the operation (a sibling tool exists for those), or what side effects occur on unmapped sources.

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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded and the parameter guidance appended with zero padding or redundancy.

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 described. Still, for an open-world mutation with three undocumented parameters, the description omits prerequisites (e.g., source swap policy eligibility) and the mapping entry structure, leaving gaps for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning — and it does explain the roles of the two mapping arrays (connection-level vs table-level). It says nothing about template_id or the shape/required fields of the mapping entries, so the compensation is partial.

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 ('Swap data sources on a template'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the workbook- and report-scoped swap siblings (elements_swap_workbook_sources, datasets_swap_report_sources). It does not explicitly name those alternatives, but the 'template' scope is clear enough to route correctly.

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?

Provides selection guidance between two parameters ('Use connectionMapping for connection-level swaps, sourceMapping for table-level swaps'), which implicitly tells the agent which one to reach for. However, it gives no when-to-use context versus other swap tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions.

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