Modify a database's name or description by ID to keep Rockfish metadata accurate.
Update a database
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Database ID | |
| name | No | Database name | |
| description | No | Database description |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses nothing. For a mutation tool, it fails to say whether the update is partial or full, whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared, whether permissions are required, or whether the change is reversible.
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 single four-word phrase is not verbose, but it is under-specified rather than concise—it omits information the agent needs. Conciseness credit requires that the remaining content earn its place, and here there is essentially no content.
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?
A mutation tool with three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema demands a description that covers behavior and effects. The description is completely inadequate for that burden, leaving the agent unable to predict what updating a database will do.
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% and each of the three parameters (id, name, description) is documented in the schema with a type and label. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 restates the tool name almost verbatim ("Update a database" for update_database), adding no scope, no field information, and no differentiation from siblings like update_project, update_dataset, or update_workflow. An agent learns only the obvious verb+resource pairing.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusion conditions. The description offers nothing an agent could use to select this tool over the many other update_* siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.