update_eventsource

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

Discloses the critical behavioral trait beyond annotations: 'Any field omitted from definition is BLANKED on the server.' It explains the confirm flag exists to 'prevent accidental field-blanking,' giving the agent a full picture of the mutation's danger profile. The destructiveHint=false annotation sits in mild tension with the blanking warning, but the confirm gate and schema warning are consistent with it not being a categorically destructive operation, so this is not a true contradiction.

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?

Four short sentences, all load-bearing: the warning is front-loaded in sentence one, the danger mechanism in sentence two, the alternative in sentence three, and the prerequisite in sentence four. There is zero filler or repetition of schema content.

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 no output schema, the description covers the operation semantics, the destructive failure mode, the alternative tool, and the required confirmation flag. It does not describe return values or error behavior, which would be nice, but the critical decision-making context an agent needs to call this safely is fully present.

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, and the schema already describes all three parameters well. The description adds value by making the `definition` semantics unmistakable ('any field omitted is BLANKED'), which is stronger than the schema's 'will replace' phrasing. This explicit blanking consequence is exactly the kind of param meaning an agent needs.

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 'RAW UPDATE -- full-replace semantics,' naming the verb (update), resource (eventsource), and the defining behavior in one compact phrase. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling update_logicmodule by contrasting raw full-replace behavior with partial updates. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does without reading the schema.

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 routes the agent: 'PREFER update_logicmodule(type='eventsource', id, changes, mode='preview') for partial updates with diff preview.' It also states the hard prerequisite 'Requires confirm=true to proceed,' leaving no ambiguity about when and how to invoke 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.