update_datasource

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, what happens to existing data, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is completely inadequate.

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 maximally concise with a single three-word sentence that gets straight to the point. There's absolutely no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, though this comes at the cost of being severely under-specified.

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 mutation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does beyond the obvious, provides no behavioral context, offers no parameter guidance, and gives no indication of what success or failure looks like.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for all 4 parameters, the description provides no information about what 'datasource_id', 'name', 'slug', or 'dimensions' mean, their expected formats, or how they affect the update operation. The description doesn't compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation in 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 'Update a datasource' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't clarify what aspects of a datasource are updated, what 'datasource' means in this context, or how this differs from similar tools like 'update_datasource_entry' or 'create_datasource'.

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 provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this should be used instead of creating a new datasource, or how it differs from other update operations like 'update_datasource_entry' or 'update_space'.

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