Update Import Source

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context of its own. It does not explain partial-update semantics, what 'destructive' means here, permission requirements, or what happens to fields left unset.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than ideal conciseness.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description says nothing about partial updates (whether omitted/null fields are preserved or cleared), authorization needs, or the result of the operation. Annotations cover the safety profile but not the update semantics an agent needs.

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 schema fully documents all eight parameters including enum-like values for schedule. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the 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?

'Update an RSS import source configuration' states a specific verb (update) and resource (RSS import source), which naturally separates it from create/delete/list siblings. It is clear but does not explicitly name an alternative or clarify scope beyond the resource.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_import_source, delete_import_source, or trigger_import_source, and no prerequisites or conditions are stated. Usage must be inferred from the name alone.

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