update_datasource_entry

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. 'Update a datasource entry' implies a mutation operation but reveals nothing about permissions required, whether changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, error conditions, or response format. For a tool that modifies data with 4 parameters, this complete lack of behavioral context is 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 - a single five-word sentence that gets straight to the point without any fluff. While severely under-specified, it's efficiently structured with zero wasted words. Every word ('Update', 'a', 'datasource', 'entry') contributes directly to the core statement of purpose.

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?

Given the complexity of a data mutation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, this description is completely inadequate. It provides only the most basic verb-noun pairing without any of the necessary context about how to use the tool, what it does behaviorally, what parameters mean, or what to expect in return. The agent would be operating almost blindly.

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 and 4 parameters (datasource_id, entry_id, name, value), the description provides zero information about what these parameters mean or how they should be used. The description doesn't mention any parameters at all, leaving the agent to guess about the purpose of 'name' and 'value' versus the identifiers. This fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 entry' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name 'update_datasource_entry' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't clarify what aspects of a datasource entry can be updated or what the operation entails beyond the basic verb-noun pairing. While it distinguishes this tool from non-datasource-related siblings, it doesn't differentiate it from similar update operations like 'update_datasource' or 'update_story' in any meaningful way.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing datasource entry), when this tool is appropriate versus creating a new entry, or what distinguishes it from other update operations in the sibling list. The agent receives no contextual cues about appropriate use cases or constraints.

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