Elements Update Source Swap Policy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds almost nothing: it does not say whether the update is a full replace or a partial merge, how 'swaps' interacts with existing policy state, or what a '(Beta)' designation implies for stability. The field list hints at mutation scope but leaves the real behavioral questions open.

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 with the action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is a terse fragment, which is efficient though slightly cryptic.

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. However, for a mutating tool with a free-form required body object and zero schema descriptions, the description leaves the agent guessing about field shapes, replacement semantics, and permissions — the core things needed to call it correctly.

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 0% and the body is a free-form nested object, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It names four possible body keys (type, name, fromConnectionId, swaps) but gives no types, allowed values, or meaning for any of them, and never explains policy_id. Partial but far from sufficient for a nested required body.

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 a source swap policy'. The verb distinguishes it from the sibling get/create/delete/list source swap policy tools without ambiguity. It stops short of explaining what a 'source swap policy' is or what the update affects.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus elements_create_source_swap_policy or elements_list_source_swap_policies, nor any prerequisites such as required permissions or whether the policy must already exist. The only implicit cue is the word 'Update'.

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