update_configsource

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

The description discloses a critical behavioral trait beyond the annotations: omitted fields in `definition` are BLANKED on the server. It also emphasizes the confirm requirement and explicitly warns about the destructive nature of the update, adding valuable context the annotations do not provide.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core semantics ('RAW UPDATE -- full-replace semantics'), and every sentence adds value. It avoids unnecessary filler while conveying the essential behavioral and usage information.

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?

The description covers the key behavioral caveat (field blanking), the alternative tool, and the confirm requirement. It does not describe return values, but the absence of an output schema makes that less critical. Overall, it provides sufficient context for a correct 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the full-replace semantics of `definition` (omitted fields are blanked) and reinforcing the role of `confirm`. This adds meaningful clarification to the parameters.

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 identifies the operation as a raw update with full-replace semantics on a ConfigSource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling update_logicmodule by specifying the difference (full-replace vs partial updates), so an agent can immediately understand what this tool does.

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?

It explicitly names update_logicmodule as the preferred alternative for partial updates with diff preview, and it states that confirm=true is required to proceed. This gives unambiguous guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative.

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