Update data table rows

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is destructive, idempotent, rate limits, or what happens if no rows match. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 concise with one sentence and a condition list. It is front-loaded but could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating the purpose from the condition 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 (not shown), the description lacks context on return behavior when 'returnData' or 'dryRun' are used, error handling, batch size limits, or filtering behavior. For a complex tool with nested parameters and 5 parameters, the description is too brief.

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 high (80%), and the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. The list of conditions is already present in the schema's 'condition' field description. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool updates rows matching a filter and lists the conditions. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like upsert or insert, nor does it specify the scope of the update (e.g., all matching rows or first match).

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 such as upsert, insert, or delete. The description implies updating rows but provides no context for filtering behavior or prerequisites like permissions.

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