tigergraph__update_data_source

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no behavioral context: it does not state whether the update merges or replaces the configuration, whether it validates against the data source type, or what happens to unspecified fields. With no additional disclosure, the description fails to enrich the agent's understanding beyond the annotations.

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 a single, concise sentence that is immediately clear. It is front-loaded with the action and object, and there is no extraneous text. While it is minimal, it achieves the necessary clarity without being verbose, so it earns a strong score for conciseness.

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 and a nested configuration object, the description is severely lacking in contextual detail. It does not explain what 'configuration' means, what fields are expected, whether the update is partial or full, or any prerequisites (e.g., the data source must exist). The schema provides generic parameter descriptions, but the description fails to give the agent enough context to safely invoke the update operation. This is incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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 schema covers all four parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning; it only repeats 'data source configuration' without elaborating on the 'config' object's structure or the optional 'profile'/'data_source_type' fields. Since the schema already provides the basic semantics, the description does not need to compensate, but it also does not enhance them.

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 states a clear action ('Update') and resource ('data source configuration'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like create_data_source or drop_data_source, so it relies on the verb to distinguish. It is specific enough for an agent to understand what it does.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that the data source must already exist, nor does it contrast with create_data_source or drop_data_source. The schema hints that data_source_type is optional for validation, but the description itself gives no usage context, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate scenario.

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