dune-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the partial update behavior ('Only fields provided will be updated'), which is valuable. However, it doesn't mention critical behavioral traits like authentication requirements, error conditions (e.g., invalid query_id), rate limits, or whether the update is reversible. The return statement is generic ('Update confirmation') without detailing success/failure responses.

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-structured with a purpose statement, behavioral note, parameter list, and return statement. Every sentence adds value, and it's front-loaded with the core purpose. The parameter list is necessary given 0% schema coverage, but it could be slightly more concise by integrating some details into the schema.

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 complexity (7 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations) and an output schema (which likely covers return values), the description is moderately complete. It explains parameters and partial update behavior but lacks context on authentication, error handling, and sibling tool differentiation. For a mutation tool with no annotations, more behavioral disclosure would be beneficial.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantic explanations for all 7 parameters (e.g., 'query_id: The unique identifier of the query to update'), adding meaning beyond the bare schema types. However, it doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., that null values might be ignored) or constraints (e.g., query_sql syntax validation).

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 action ('Update an existing saved query') with specific resources involved (saved query). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'create_query' (for new queries) and 'make_query_private/public' (which handle only privacy settings). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when updating existing saved queries. It distinguishes from 'create_query' (for new queries) by specifying 'existing saved query.' However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., vs. 'make_query_private' for privacy-only changes) or mention prerequisites like authentication needs.

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