Update Saved Query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It states 'Update fields' but does not disclose whether updates are full replacements or merges, if the tool is destructive, or what permissions are needed beyond the environment variable. The presence of an output schema is mentioned but not described, leaving the return behavior unclear.

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 plus a prerequisite note, both front-loaded. It is efficient with no wasted words, though it could be slightly expanded to include behavioral details without losing brevity.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema), the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the effect on the query after update, does not mention alternative scenarios, and omits details that would help an agent use the tool correctly. The presence of an output schema is acknowledged but not leveraged to reduce description burden.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage. The description lists the updatable fields (name, SQL, description, tags, parameters) but adds no detail on format, constraints, or behavior (e.g., whether query_sql must be a full SQL statement, how tags are handled, or the structure of parameters). This is minimal added value over the schema.

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 fields') and the resource ('saved Dune query'), with a specific list of updateable fields (name, SQL, description, tags, parameters). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like dune_query_create, dune_query_fork, and dune_query_archive by implying modification of an existing query.

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 includes a necessary precondition ('Requires SPICE_DUNE_ALLOW_SAVES=true') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., dune_query_create for new queries, dune_query_fork for copies). It lacks exclusions or context for appropriate invocation.

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