Update single source

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the generic update action. Annotations provide idempotent and openWorld hints, but the text does not explain whether the update is partial or full replacement, how missing IDs are handled, or any side effects. It only restates the obvious.

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 a single, clear sentence that states the core action efficiently. It is front-loaded and has no wasted words, though its brevity borders on under-specification.

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 nested 'source' object and absence of an output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain the expected format of the source object, the nature of the update (merge vs replace), or what the response contains. More context is needed for reliable invocation.

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, the description needed to explain the parameters, but it only mentions 'by ID' for the id parameter and does not clarify the 'source' object structure or valid fields. The schema itself is minimal, so the description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter meaning.

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 clearly states the tool updates a source by ID, identifying the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool kommo_sources_update, which likely has a similar purpose, so it lacks sibling distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like kommo_sources_update. There is no mention of preferred scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without explicit decision support.

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