Replace a LOG store's field definitions (full replace)

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

The description adds critical behavioral context beyond the annotations (destructiveHint: true) by explaining the full replacement semantics and that omitted fields will be dropped. This prevents misuse and aligns well with the 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 two sentences and a warning, focused and front-loaded. Every sentence serves a clear purpose with no redundant information.

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 (full replace, destructive), the description provides sufficient context: warning about replacement, guidance to read first, and implicit need to preserve all fields. No output schema is needed as the action is clear.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what is already in the input schema for the parameters logId and fields.

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 updates the field schema of an existing LOG store and emphasizes it is a full replace. This distinguishes it from partial updates and sibling tools, making the specific verb+resource+scope very clear.

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 advises to read the current fields first (e.g., via rootr_read) and warns about the full replace behavior. However, it does not explicitly specify when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives for partial updates, leaving minor room for improvement.

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