Update build sources (raw)

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

Annotations already establish readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false; the description adds context about it being a raw fallback. However, it does not surface that the raw body can include deleteGeneratorName, which is a destructive operation despite destructiveHint=false, so the safety picture remains incomplete.

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 sentences with no filler; the action and the key routing guidance are front-loaded. Every word contributes to selection and safe invocation.

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?

With an output schema, a fully-described body_json parameter, and explicit alternatives, the agent has enough to decide when to use this tool and how to call it. The sibling context is large, but the description narrows the decision effectively.

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 heavy lifting is done by the body_json and session_id descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail but does not need to; baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Send') and resource ('raw update-sources body to a draft') and immediately frames it as the fallback for fields typed tools do not cover. This clearly separates it from the many sibling build tools.

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?

It explicitly says to prefer repovive_build_update_statement, _set_generator, _set_gen_data, _set_validator or _set_custom_checker unless something they omit is needed. This gives the agent a concrete routing rule with named alternatives.

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