update_documentShallow-merge a patch into a document (top-level keys overwrite; keys are never deleted). Counts against the write quota.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| db | Yes | The database URL returned at creation (or its bare s-... capability). | |
| id | Yes | Document id (doc_...). | |
| patch | Yes | Top-level fields to merge. | |
| collection | Yes | Collection name (created implicitly on first write). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description properly discloses the shallow-merge behavior, that keys are never deleted, and that it counts against write quota. It lacks info on error handling or idempotency, but the key mutation details are well covered.
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?
Two clear sentences, front-loaded with key behavior ('shallow-merge'), no redundant information. Every sentence adds value.
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 simple update tool with 4 required params and no output schema, the description covers the merge behavior, quota, and key constraints. Minor gaps: no mention of error cases or idempotency, but overall complete.
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 covers 100% of parameters with good descriptions. The description adds overall merge semantics but does not enhance individual parameter understanding 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?
Description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Shallow-merge a patch into a document' with specific verb and resource. It also specifies behavior (top-level keys overwrite, no key deletion) distinguishing it from create_document or delete_document.
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 explains when to use (to patch a document) but does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or mention alternatives among many sibling tools. Usage context is implied but not contrasted with similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with descriptions that differentiate similar operations (e.g., create_database vs pro_create_database vs pro_attach_database). Agents can easily select the correct tool.
Most tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern, but 'database_status' is noun_verb. The 'pro_' prefix is consistently used for Pro account tools. Overall pattern is clear and predictable.
16 tools cover the full lifecycle of temporary databases, document CRUD, collection management, and Pro account operations. Each tool is justified and the count feels well-scoped for the domain.
The tool surface provides complete CRUD for documents, database lifecycle (create, delete, extend, status), and full Pro account management (checkout, cancel, create, attach, list). No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.