fusion_update_interface_data

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds crucial behavioral context: passing the wrong load_request_id lands the correction on a different batch, and the tool must not be confirmed until the user reads back the request ID. This warns about the destructive, mis-targeting risk and the confirmation requirement beyond what annotations state.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence summary, followed by a concrete illustrative scenario, a crucial warning, and a terse Args list. Every sentence carries operational value; the example scales the problem ('ten thousand rows, forty rejected') without bloating. No filler or repetition.

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?

With five parameters, zero schema descriptions, a destructive annotation, and an output schema present, the description covers everything needed for correct invocation: all parameter meanings, the confirmation protocol, and the risk of using the wrong load_request_id. It leaves no essential gap for the agent to call or validate this tool correctly.

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 0%, so every parameter must be explained in the description. It does so clearly: process_name, load_request_id, file_path, account, and confirmed all receive meaningful definitions. The warning about load_request_id adds critical semantic nuance beyond the mere schema name.

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 opens with 'Replace the rejected rows of a partly-failed import with corrected ones,' a specific verb-resource pair that clearly states what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from broader import/submission siblings by focusing on the repair of rejected rows, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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 explicitly frames the repair path: an import with forty rejected rows is corrected by replacing those rows 'rather than reloading the whole file.' This contrasts with the alternative and tells the agent when to invoke this tool. It also gives a safety guideline: verify the load_request_id and require explicit user confirmation before confirming.

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