modx_update_media_source

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the most important trait: properties are merged into existing params with others preserved, so callers know they won't clobber unrelated config. It says nothing about permissions required, whether name/description replacement is partial or full, reversibility, or what the response contains.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the one non-obvious parameter behavior. No filler, no repetition of the tool name's semantics.

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 zero annotations, no output schema, and only 25% schema coverage, the definition is thin: it never addresses partial-update semantics for name/description, required permissions, or failure behavior. The merge note is genuinely useful but covers only one of four parameters.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for 'properties' (a merged {name:value} map with non-destructive semantics plus basePath/baseUrl examples), but leaves 'id' (required), 'name', and 'description' entirely unexplained — notably whether omitting them preserves current values or blanks them.

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 and resource ("Update a media source"), which is unambiguously distinct from the get/list/create/delete media-source siblings in the toolset. It does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast itself with one, so it stops 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 clause "use it to set basePath/baseUrl/etc." gives a concrete use case for the properties map, which implies usage. However there is no guidance on when to call this versus modx_create_media_source or modx_get_media_source, no prerequisite to read the existing source first, and no exclusions.

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