semantic_model_update_details

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only but non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by scoping changes to name/description only and preserving the definition. It does not disclose return behavior, validation rules, or whether updates are partial/overwrite semantics.

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 sentence front-loads the action and resource, then immediately states the critical exclusion. There is no filler or redundant detail.

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 tool with two required IDs and two optional metadata fields, the description plus schema and annotations is sufficient for correct selection and invocation. Minor gaps remain around partial-update behavior and what happens if no optional field is supplied, but these are not critical for this simple operation.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds the conceptual mapping that 'displayName' is the name field, but it does not provide additional constraints, optionality context, or interaction semantics 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 states a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('semantic model') and narrows the scope to 'name or description', explicitly excluding definition changes. This clearly distinguishes it from definition-focused siblings like semantic_model_update_bim and semantic_model_update_tmdl.

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 phrase 'does not modify the definition' communicates the main exclusion and implies this tool is for metadata-only updates, not definition changes. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when to prefer this one over semantic_model_update_bim/tmdl.

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