Datamesh Update Metadata

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: only supplied fields are modified and the rest remain untouched, plus the read-only-mode availability gate. It does not explain what makes the operation destructive (e.g. overwriting existing field values), which is the one remaining gap.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the partial-update rule, then the availability gate. No filler and every sentence carries distinct 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a mutation tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description covers scope, partial-update semantics, and the read-only limitation. Only the destructive consequence is left implicit for the agent to infer.

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 all seven parameters including datasource_id, info, name, tags, labels, details, and description are already documented with formats and length limits in the schema. The description adds nothing parameter-specific here, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Update metadata properties on an existing datasource"), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the read-oriented siblings (search_catalog, get_datasource_info, query_data). It stops short of naming any sibling, but since no other tool in the set performs updates, differentiation is implicit.

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?

It gives a clear when-not condition ("Not available when the server runs with OCEANUM_MCP_READ_ONLY set") and clarifies the partial-update contract, so an agent knows changes are additive per-field. No alternative tool is named, but none exists in this family for metadata mutation.

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