datatype-update

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the mutually exclusive nature of three key parameters (fields, collectionDatatype, derivedFrom) and namespace formatting rules. While annotations already indicate this is a destructive, non-idempotent write operation (destructiveHint: true, idempotentHint: false), the description provides specific implementation details about datatype creation logic.

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 efficiently structured with clear bullet points explaining the three datatype categories, followed by concise explanations of namespace conventions. Every sentence provides essential information with zero wasted words, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 complex tool with 7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and destructive annotations, the description does well covering the core datatype creation logic and parameter relationships. However, it doesn't explain the purpose of other parameters like tags, projectAssignments, or the qualifiedName format, leaving some gaps in understanding the full tool scope.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It successfully explains the purpose and relationships of three critical parameters (fields, collectionDatatype, derivedFrom), their mutual exclusivity, and namespace formatting requirements for referenced datatypes. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose as 'Create or update custom data types' with specific details about the three mutually exclusive datatype categories (struct, collection, domain). It clearly distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'datatype-delete' by focusing on creation/update rather than deletion.

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 provides clear context about when to use specific parameters (mutually exclusive options for struct, collection, or domain types) and namespace conventions for connectors and business objects. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'businessobject-update' or 'connector-update' which might handle related functionality.

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