update_global_source

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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the rest and does so well: it discloses that the operation is destructive full-replacement, that it will be blocked if the new source is under 50% of existing size, and that explicit user approval is mandatory. These are non-obvious guardrails an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by a numbered imperative workflow and the safeguard note. Nearly every sentence earns its place; the only mild redundancy is item 3 restating the approval requirement already implied by item 2.

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 two-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the safety profile, the prerequisite read step, the confirmation gate, the safeguard threshold, and the sibling alternative. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: the `source` parameter is a wholesale replacement of the ENTIRE source rather than a merge, which the schema's terse "New source configuration (JSON object)" does not convey. The 50%-size safeguard also clarifies expected input shape, though format details remain schema-only.

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?

States a precise verb and resource ("Replace full source of a global source") and immediately scopes it as whole-source replacement, which is the exact axis that separates it from update_global_source_element. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like update_global_source_contents and update_global_source_elements without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit pre-call workflow (read via get_global_source_detail, show the user, get explicit confirmation) and names the alternative tool plus the condition that selects it (element-level changes -> update_global_source_element). When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both stated.

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