update_topologysource

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the destructive blanking behavior, the full-replace semantics, and the safety confirm requirement. It does not contradict any annotation and adds critical operational context.

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 extremely concise—two sentences, front-loaded with the key 'RAW UPDATE -- full-replace semantics' warning, followed by the alternative and confirmation requirement. Every word earns its place.

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 destructive full-replace tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: the semantics, the risk of omitted fields, the safer alternative, and the confirm flag. An agent can correctly decide when to use it and how to invoke it safely.

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?

While the schema already covers all parameters, the description adds meaning by explaining the definition parameter's full-replace nature and the confirm parameter's role in preventing accidental field-blanking. This reinforces and adds rationale beyond the schema text.

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 the tool performs a full-replace update on a TopologySource. It specifies the verb 'UPDATE', the resource, and the critical semantics of blanking omitted fields, which distinguishes it from the sibling update_logicmodule that handles 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 states when to use this tool (full-replace) and when to prefer update_logicmodule for partial updates with diff preview. It also notes the requirement of confirm=true, leaving no ambiguity about prerequisites or alternatives.

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