update_ingress_source

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: partial update ('Only supplied fields change'), the rotate_secret secret being shown once and old secret stopping immediately, and the admin-only restriction. It does not mention return value or error handling, but key side effects are covered, earning a 4.

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?

The description is two sentences with critical info front-loaded: purpose, admin restriction, partial update, and the rotate_secret side effect. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words. This is an excellent example of conciseness.

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 tool has 8 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core behavior well: update, partial update, secret rotation. It lacks explicit mention of the return format or that filters/template are full replacements (though schema states these). Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to use correctly, but misses minor nuances.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying partial update semantics ('Only supplied fields change'), which is not evident from individual parameter descriptions. This context helps the agent understand that omitted fields remain unchanged, justifying a 4.

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 clearly states the action 'Update' and the resource 'inbound connector source'. It adds specific details like 'admin only', 'Only supplied fields change', and the rotate_secret feature, which distinguishes it from related tools like create_ingress_source and list_ingress_sources. This level of specificity achieves a 5.

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 includes usage constraints ('admin only', 'Hosted API only') and explains the special rotate_secret behavior with immediate effects. While it does not explicitly list alternatives, the context makes it clear when to use this tool (updating an existing source) versus creating or deleting. The guidance is sufficient but not exhaustive, warranting a 4.

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