update_remediationsource

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

The description is highly transparent about full-replace semantics and field-blanking, but it directly contradicts the annotation destructiveHint=false. Blanking omitted fields, including the script, is a destructive side effect, so the annotation misrepresents the tool's behavior. Per the scoring rule, this contradiction forces a score of 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?

Two dense sentences front-load the most critical warning ('RAW UPDATE -- full-replace semantics'), then immediately explain the destructive consequence, the safer alternative, and the required confirmation. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 critical operational context: replacement semantics, field-blanking consequences, the safer partial-update alternative, and the confirmation requirement. An agent has everything needed to avoid catastrophic misuse.

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 covers 100% of parameters, but the description adds important semantic detail beyond the schema: omitted definition fields are blanked on the server, including the script, and confirm=true is required as an explicit guard against accidental blanking. This clarifies the real meaning of the definition parameter beyond '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 clearly identifies this as a full-replace update of a RemediationSource, using explicit 'RAW UPDATE' and 'full-replace semantics' language. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling update_logicmodule tool by naming the exact alternative for 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?

The description explicitly states when to prefer this tool versus the alternative: use it for full replacement, prefer update_logicmodule for partial updates with diff preview. It also specifies the confirm=true prerequisite to proceed, leaving no ambiguity about safe invocation.

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