update_diagnosticsource

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

The description discloses critical destructive behavior: 'Any field omitted from definition is BLANKED on the server, including the script.' This is a significant behavioral disclosure. However, it contradicts the annotation destructiveHint=false, which implies the tool is non-destructive. Blanking server fields is a destructive side effect, so the description conflicts with the annotation. Per scoring rules, this is an annotation contradiction, so score is 1.

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?

Three sentences, no waste. Each sentence carries essential information: full-replace warning, alternative routing, and confirmation requirement. Front-loaded with 'RAW UPDATE'.

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 nested object and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior, safety, and routing to a safer alternative. It doesn't describe return values, but that is not essential for correct invocation. Still, a note on success/error return could improve completeness, so 4.

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?

The description adds crucial semantics beyond the schema: it explains that `definition` is a full replacement and that omitting fields blanks them, and that `confirm` must be true to proceed. The schema already documents parameters, but the description enriches understanding of the full-replace behavior, which is not fully captured by schema descriptions.

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 this is a raw full-replace update for a DiagnosticSource, specifically 'RAW UPDATE -- full-replace semantics'. It differentiates from update_logicmodule by naming it as the preferred alternative for partial updates. The verb and resource are explicit and distinguishable from siblings.

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 recommends update_logicmodule for partial updates and requires confirm=true to proceed. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and alternative routing with no ambiguity.

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