alter_input

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

There are no annotations to disclose safety or side effects, so the description carries the full burden. It simply says 'Modify settings' without explaining the impact of the dry_run and confirm_write parameters, whether changes are reversible, or whether special permissions are needed. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 with no verbosity, which is appropriate for conveying the core purpose. However, it is under-specified and lacks any structural information about parameters or usage, making it minimally concise but not effectively structured.

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?

Given the tool has three undocumented parameters, no annotations, and an output schema whose content is unexplained, the description is far from complete. The agent cannot safely or correctly invoke the tool without knowledge of payload format, dry_run semantics, or confirm_write behavior. This is inadequate for a tool with 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 input schema has three parameters (dry_run, payload, confirm_write) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention any of them. The agent receives no help understanding the payload structure, the purpose of dry_run, or how confirm_write affects execution. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 uses the specific verb 'Modify' and names the resource 'settings on an existing input connector', which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like create_input, delete_input, and describe_inputs. It precisely identifies what the tool 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, or contrast with create_input/alter_output. The only weak implication is 'existing', which hints it is for modification rather than creation, but this is not explicit.

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