alter_output

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Modify settings' without explaining side effects, reversibility, or the existence of safety mechanisms like dry_run and confirm_write. This is comparable to a mutation tool lacking permission or reversibility details.

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, grammatically clear sentence with no waste. It effectively communicates the core action, though it sacrifices depth for brevity, which is acceptable for conciseness but not for completeness.

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?

The tool includes safety-related parameters (dry_run, confirm_write) and an output schema, yet the description fails to mention these or how they shape behavior. It does not explain the write confirmation flow or how to use the tool safely, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate. It mentions no parameters (dry_run, payload, confirm_write) and adds no meaning beyond the schema's bare field names. With three undocumented parameters, the agent cannot reliably construct a correct call.

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 'Modify settings on an existing output connector' uses a specific verb (Modify), identifies the resource (existing output connector), and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_output, delete_output, and alter_input.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention creation or deletion as separate tools, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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