update_records

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses very little: it is a mutation tool but says nothing about reversibility, affected-row counts, transaction behavior, or permissions. The one useful disclosure is that `where` is required and non-empty, implying an update without a filter is blocked — a meaningful safety guard for a bulk-update tool, but thin overall.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the action and the key constraint with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the thinness noted elsewhere.

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 destructive bulk-mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, nested objects, and 4 parameters, the description is far too sparse. An agent lacks the behavioral context needed to invoke this safely or predict its effect.

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 coverage is only 50%, and `set` and `table` are undocumented in both schema and description. The description only reinforces the `where` requirement ('obligatorio y no vacío'), which partially extends the schema but does not compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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?

States a specific verb (Actualiza) and resource (registros), which cleanly distinguishes it from insert_records and delete_records among the siblings. It is a clear purpose statement, though it offers no additional differentiation beyond the verb+resource.

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 versus delete_records, insert_records, or execute_sql. It notes that `where` is obligatory, which is a hint, but there are no usage conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives named.

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