Update an installed destination

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

With no annotations, the description effectively discloses key behaviors: status transitions are limited to active and paused (failed cannot be set manually), and nullable fields follow a trinary semantics (omit=preserve, send new value=overwrite). This clarifies the update's partial nature and constraints.

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 concise—three sentences that front-load the purpose (first sentence) and then add critical behavioral details. Every sentence provides essential information, with no redundancy or 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?

Despite no output schema or annotations, the description covers the main behavioral aspects (partial updates, status rules, nullable semantics) for a moderately complex tool with nested objects. It does not address prerequisites or error handling, but the core usage is well-specified.

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?

The description lists the updatable fields (name, config, filters, status) and adds contextual semantics for nullable fields and status transitions. However, it does not describe each parameter's purpose or data type beyond what the schema already provides; the schema itself covers most details. The trinary semantics add moderate value.

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 updates an existing destination by specifying the fields that can be changed (name, config, filters, status). It is distinct from sibling tools like create, delete, get, and list, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like destination_create or destination_test. However, it provides important usage details such as allowed status transitions (active↔paused) and trinary semantics for nullable fields, which guide correct invocation.

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