update_global_source

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states this replaces the ENTIRE source, requires user approval, and includes a safeguard that blocks the update if the new source is less than 50% of the existing size. This goes beyond typical descriptions, though it does not mention return values or post-conditions.

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 well-organized with a clear main statement, numbered prerequisites, and a final safeguard/alternative note. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the numbered list makes the instructions easy to follow.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema and annotations, the description provides all necessary context: purpose, required pre-steps, destructive nature, safety guard, and an alternative tool. This is highly complete for a destructive 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 100% for both parameters, so the schema already documents them fully. The description does not add extra semantic meaning beyond what is in the schema, but it does reinforce that 'source' is a full replacement.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Replace full source of a global source.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting 'For element-level changes, prefer update_global_source_element instead.'

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: it mandates reading existing source first, showing changes to the user, and obtaining explicit confirmation before calling. It also names an alternative tool for element-level changes.

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