update_global_source_element

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses that the operation can cause data loss, that dry_run returns a diff, that user confirmation is mandatory, and it details complex merge/replace semantics for different field types (style/config/specials shallow merge, responsive merge by bp key, events/bindings full replacement). This is exemplary transparency beyond basic safety hints.

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 long but every sentence serves a purpose. It is structured clearly with STEP 1/2/3, an IMPORTANT warning, and merge rules. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and immediately jumps into the critical workflow. No redundant or filler content exists; the structure aids readability and comprehension.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, nested objects, two-step process, no output schema), the description is exceptionally complete. It covers the full workflow, explicit confirmation requirements, merge vs replace behavior, and normalization details. The only missing piece is return value specifics, but the description does mention the diff output in step 1, and without an output schema this is sufficient.

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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant meaning to parameters by explaining how they behave. For example, it clarifies that 'events' and 'bindings' arrays are completely replaced and must contain the full list, and that 'style', 'config', and 'specials' are shallow-merged. It also explains the dry_run default and the need to read existing data first, which the schema does not convey.

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 purpose: 'Update a single element within a global source.' It uses a specific verb ('update') and resource ('single element within a global source'), and the singular wording distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'update_global_source_elements' (plural). The purpose is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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 excellent usage guidance with a step-by-step process: dry_run=true first, show diff, get explicit user confirmation, then dry_run=false. It clearly instructs when to call with each dry_run value and warns against skipping confirmation. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool (e.g., for batch updates), so it lacks the explicit sibling differentiation described in a 5.

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