db_update_rows

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose two behavioral traits: 'auto-approved' and 'logged', which are useful. However, it doesn't mention whether the update is irreversible, how many rows might be affected, or what the response contains, leaving gaps in transparency for a mutation tool.

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 one sentence, front-loads the core action and object, and uses a parenthetical for additional context. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

The tool has 4 required parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, so the description should clarify return behavior or side effects. It does not mention return values, error cases, or the risk of large-scale updates. While 'auto-approved/logged' adds safety context, the description alone is not fully complete for an agent to know what to expect after invocation.

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 100% (all 4 parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it doesn't clarify types, relationships, or usage nuances for parameters like 'where' or 'params'.

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 rows') and the resource/scope ('in a table matching a WHERE clause'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like db_insert_row and db_delete_rows. The parenthetical '(auto-approved, logged)' adds a distinctive purpose-related detail.

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 implies usage for updating rows based on a condition, but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives like db_execute_query or db_delete_rows, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites.

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