update_catalog_entry

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool updates, but doesn't mention permissions, reversibility, side effects, or whether updates overwrite or merge. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the verb. It contains no unnecessary words, though it is perhaps too terse for the tool's complexity.

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 six parameters and no annotation support, the description is severely under-specified. It doesn't clarify what fields can be updated, whether partial updates are allowed, or how source_id is used. The existing output schema cannot compensate for the lack of input context.

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 compensate by explaining parameters. It doesn't mention any of the six parameters (name, tags, columns, source_id, connection, description) or their semantics, providing zero value beyond the raw schema.

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 ('an existing data source in the catalog'), and the word 'existing' distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_catalog_entry. This meets the criteria for a specific verb+resource+scope.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_catalog_entry. The usage is only implied by the verb 'update' and the word 'existing', but there are no preconditions, exclusions, or alternative tool mentions.

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