update_global_source_contents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mutating nature with 'upsert' and imposes a strict confirmation requirement. It doesn't describe return values or detailed side effects, but the core behavioral constraints are clear.

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?

Three short sentences: statement of purpose, entry field listing, and critical usage instruction. No redundancy, information is front-loaded.

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 description is adequate for a mutation tool with one clearly-specified array parameter and a referencing prerequisite tool. It lacks return value details, but that's less critical; the strong process requirement is commendable.

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% with descriptions for each property, so the description doesn't need to compensate. It adds a compact overview of the required entry structure but offers little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'update' with resource 'multilingual contents', and clarifies it is an 'upsert'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_global_source_element by focusing on multilingual content entries rather than the global source record or individual elements.

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?

Provides explicit and mandatory usage context: must read existing contents via get_global_source_contents first, show the user what will change, and obtain explicit confirmation. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or contrast with alternatives like update_global_source(es).

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