update_source

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It merely says 'update' and lists parameters, without disclosing behaviors such as partial update support, error handling, permission requirements, or what happens if the source_id does not exist.

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 and well-structured with a brief sentence followed by a parameter list. It is efficient but could benefit from a more formal structure (e.g., bullet points) for clarity.

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 low complexity (5 parameters, 1 required), the description covers the basic purpose and parameters. However, it lacks information on return values, error states, or the effect of omitting optional parameters, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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 input schema has 0% coverage (no descriptions), and the description only repeats parameter names with minimal explanations (e.g., 'New display name'). This adds little meaning beyond the schema's property names, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Update an existing news source', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_source' and 'delete_source' by implying modification rather than creation or deletion.

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 implies usage for updating a source but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_source for new sources) or provide prerequisites like the source existing.

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