ecp_mssql_update_row

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing that this is a mutating operation. It only says 'update,' without mentioning that changes are applied to specified values, that a confirm=true flag is required, or what happens if the primary key does not match an existing row. This is insufficient for a destructive database operation.

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 a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and the identifying mechanism. It is concise and scannable, though the brevity comes at the cost of missing essential detail captured in other dimensions.

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 mutating tool with 7 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and nested objects, this description is far too thin. It fails to mention the mandatory confirm flag, how values should be structured as column-value pairs, authentication parameters, or any error/return behavior. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly from the description alone.

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%, and there are 7 required parameters including nested objects for primary_key and values. The description clarifies only the role of primary_key, leaving values, confirm, db_name, table_name, db_username, and password unexplained. It does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 ('a row in a table'), and adds the key mechanism 'identified by primary_key.' This is specific enough to distinguish the operation from insert, delete, and browse row tools among the sibling set, though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over insert_row, delete_row, or browse_rows, and no mention of alternatives or exclusions. The only usage hint is indirect: the row is found by primary_key. It does not address prerequisites like confirmation or object shape.

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