airbyte_update_destination

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds 'Uses PATCH semantics: only the fields you provide are changed,' which clarifies the update behavior. No contradiction.

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?

Description is well-structured with sections, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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?

Covers purpose, when to use, workflow, behavior, and examples. Although output schema exists but not shown, the description mentions return value. Lacks error handling or auth notes but is sufficient for an update tool with idempotent hint.

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?

Input schema has detailed descriptions for each field. Description adds value by providing concrete examples (rename, update configuration) and a workflow, which helps the agent understand how to populate parameters. The examples make it a 4.

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?

Description clearly states 'Update an existing destination connector's name or configuration.' It specifies the action, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like airbyte_create_destination and airbyte_get_destination by focusing on updating an existing entity.

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?

Description includes a 'When to Use' section with three clear scenarios and a recommended workflow (get, build, update). It provides context but does not explicitly mention when NOT to use or list alternatives; however, the guidance is strong.

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