update_propertysource

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

The description is actually very transparent: it warns about full-replace semantics, field blanking, and the confirm guard. However, the annotations declare destructiveHint=false, while the described behavior of BLANKING omitted fields on the server is a destructive overwrite. This is an annotation contradiction, so the score is 1 per the scoring rule.

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 dense and front-loaded: the dangerous full-replace semantics are stated first, the blanking consequence second, the safer alternative third, and the required confirmation last. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 gives an agent everything needed to invoke it correctly: the full-replace contract, the destructive risk, the required confirm flag, and a pointer to the safer partial-update alternative.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds crucial meaning beyond the schema by explaining that any field omitted from definition is blanked and that confirm must be true, which materially changes how the parameters should be used.

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 a specific verb, resource, and operation mode. It also distinguishes itself from update_logicmodule, so an agent can tell exactly what this tool does without examining schemas.

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?

The description explicitly says to PREFER update_logicmodule(type='propertysource', id, changes, mode='preview') for partial updates and specifies that confirm=true is required. This gives an agent clear routing guidance and a concrete prerequisite.

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