update_source

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a mutation ('update') but does not mention permissions, side effects, reversibility, or how unspecified fields are handled. The parenthetical operation list is minimal and does not explain whether keyword filters are replaced or merged.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary verb and resource, with a parenthetical clarifying the two operation types. Every word contributes to meaning, with zero filler.

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?

For a simple mutation tool with complete schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description provides the essential purpose but lacks context about prerequisites, effects on existing data, or when to choose this tool over siblings. The schema compensates for parameter semantics, but the description does not add behavioral or usage 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?

The schema provides full descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), meeting the baseline of 3. The description adds a high-level mapping between 'name' and 'rename' and 'keywords' and 'keyword filters', but does not add detail beyond the 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 verb 'update' and resource 'source', and specifies the two operations: 'rename or set keyword filters'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_source, delete_source, and get_source.

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 modifying an existing source, but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives such as add_source or delete_source. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions, so it relies on the name and basic context.

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