Update an existing data spec

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

While annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only and is idempotent, the description adds rich behavioral context: it saves changes, re-runs analysis by default, and supports a two-phase upload flow with replacement files. This goes beyond the schema and annotations, covering both synchronous and upload-based execution paths without contradicting any annotations.

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 concise, with four purposeful sentences: stating the action, describing synchronous behavior, explaining the upload flow, and advising on parameter usage. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and efficiently conveys complex conditional behavior without unnecessary wording.

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's complexity (14 parameters, conditional execution), the description adequately covers the essential behavioral branches: synchronous save with re-analysis, upload-URL return, and follow-up via finish_data_spec_update. It does not detail return structures beyond 'upload URL(s)', but in the absence of an output schema and with 100% schema coverage, this is sufficient for an agent to use the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that supplying replacement file parameters (e.g., formatFileName) triggers the upload URL flow, and it clarifies partial update semantics. This contextualizes parameter usage beyond the schema without duplicating it.

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 tool's purpose: 'Change an existing data spec's configuration.' This is a specific verb+resource (change + data spec configuration), and it distinguishes itself from siblings like delete_data_spec and the follow-up finish_data_spec_update by explaining the two-phase upload flow. The purpose is unambiguous and well-differentiated.

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 explicitly explains when the tool runs synchronously versus when it returns upload URLs, and directs the caller to call finish_data_spec_update after uploading. This gives clear when/when-not guidance and references an alternative tool. The phrase 'Only pass fields you want to change' further clarifies intended usage.

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