claude-database-tools

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 mentions the WHERE clause requirement 'for security', which hints at safety considerations, but doesn't describe other critical behaviors: whether updates are reversible, what permissions are needed, how errors are handled, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place: the first states what the tool does, and the second provides a critical constraint. There's zero waste or redundancy.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens on success/failure, return values, error conditions, or transactional behavior. The security note about WHERE clause is helpful but doesn't compensate for the lack of behavioral context needed for safe agent invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly with examples. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by emphasizing the WHERE clause requirement, but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter interactions or edge cases. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Updates data') and resource ('in an MSSQL Database table'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like insert_data (adds new records) and delete_data (removes records) by specifying it modifies existing data. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'data' refers to (e.g., column values), which prevents a perfect score.

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 some usage context by specifying 'using a WHERE clause' and that it 'must be provided for security', which implies this tool should be used when you need to modify specific records rather than all records. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like delete_data or when not to use it (e.g., for bulk operations without filtering). The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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