update_datasource

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

The description warns of destructive behavior (field blanking, production incidents) but the annotation destructiveHint=false contradicts this. This is a serious inconsistency, so the description's behavioral disclosure is undermined by the annotation.

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 most critical warning ('full-replace semantics'), and packs essential safety and alternative guidance into a few sentences without fluff.

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 tool with destructive potential, the description covers the replacement semantics, the confirm requirement, historical incidents, and the safer alternative. It is complete for safe usage, aside from the annotation contradiction.

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%, but the description adds the crucial clarification that omitted fields are blanked, which is not fully explicit in the schema. This goes beyond the schema's 'will replace' phrasing, adding valuable semantic detail.

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 states a specific verb ('update'), resource ('datasource'), and the critical semantics ('full-replace'). It explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool update_logicmodule, making the purpose 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?

Explicitly directs the agent to prefer update_logicmodule for partial updates with diff preview, and states the requirement for confirm=true. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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