update_logsource

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

The description is transparent, warning that omitted fields are BLANKED and that confirm=true is required. However, annotations declare destructiveHint=false, which directly contradicts the destructive field-blanking behavior described. This is an annotation 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?

Three dense sentences with no filler. The critical full-replace warning is front-loaded, and the safer alternative plus confirmation requirement are stated compactly.

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 three-parameter tool with complete schema descriptions and no output schema, the description fully covers the operation, its destructive edge case, the required confirmation, and the preferred sibling tool for partial updates.

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 adds value beyond the schema by explaining full-replace semantics and that omitted definition fields are blanked, reinforcing the danger the schema only hints at with 'will replace'.

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 and resource: a RAW UPDATE with full-replace semantics for a LogSource definition. It clearly differentiates itself from the sibling update_logicmodule by contrasting full-replace vs partial updates.

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 says to prefer update_logicmodule(type='logsource', id, changes, mode='preview') for partial updates with diff preview, and requires confirm=true to proceed. This gives the agent unambiguous selection criteria and invocation requirements.

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