update_dataset_definition

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

Although destructiveHint=true already flags risk, the description adds genuinely useful context beyond the annotation: it explicitly says the ENTIRE definition is replaced and that a backup is created automatically. The backup guarantee is real behavioral information an agent cannot infer from the annotation alone.

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?

Two short sentences, with the destructive warning front-loaded exactly where an agent will read it before acting. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the annotation covers the destructive hint. The description covers replacement scope and the automatic backup, though it omits any prerequisite flow (get_dataset first) that would make it fully self-contained for a full-replacement mutation.

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% and the schema already documents dataset_id and the required JSON keys (PhysicalTableMap, LogicalTableMap, ImportMode) plus the get_dataset prerequisite. The description adds nothing about the parameters, 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?

States a specific verb (Update) and resource (full dataset definition) with the source (from JSON), which is clear enough to distinguish it from the SQL-oriented siblings like update_dataset_sql. It does not, however, explicitly call out what makes it different from those siblings, so it lands just short of a 5.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. With many related siblings (update_dataset_sql, modify_dataset_sql, create_dataset, get_dataset), the agent gets no help deciding when this full-replacement path is appropriate versus the SQL-editing tools.

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