update_stream

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only indicates mutation ('update'), but does not describe side effects (e.g., stream must be stopped, immediate effect, permissions needed). This is inadequate for safe invocations.

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 overly minimal (one sentence). While concise, it sacrifices necessary information. There is no structure or front-loading of key details.

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 having an output schema, the description provides no context on return values. With 3 parameters, 2 required, and no parameter explanations, the description fails to be complete. The tool's complexity (updating a SQL stream) warrants more detail.

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%, meaning no parameter details in the schema itself. The description does not explain any parameter semantics, leaving the agent to infer from names alone. For a tool with 3 parameters including 'sql_query', this is insufficient.

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) and the resource (existing SQL stream), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_stream or delete_stream. However, 'SQL stream' lacks explicit definition, but in context of sibling tools, it's sufficiently clear.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_stream or update_sync_config. No prerequisites, preconditions, or exclusions are mentioned.

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