profilarr_update_database

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses key partial-update semantics ('Only provided fields change; unknown fields are ignored') and references dependency rules, which is helpful. However, it omits authorization requirements, error behavior, and whether changes are reversible, leaving significant gaps 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place. It efficiently includes the critical behavioral detail and a cross-reference to a related tool without any fluff.

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 has an output schema and moderate complexity (dynamic patch object), the description covers the essential partial-update behavior, unknown-field handling, and dependency rules via reference. It omits error cases and id context, but the output schema covers return values, making this reasonably complete.

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 no descriptions for id or patch, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that patch is a partial object and unknown fields are ignored, and it points to create_database for field rules. Yet it does not elaborate on the id parameter or enumerate specific patch fields, so only partial compensation is achieved.

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 'Partial update of a linked database' with a specific verb (update) and resource (database), and the 'partial' qualifier distinguishes it from full creation or deletion. It also implies a relationship to other database tools, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides valuable context by pointing to profilarr_create_database for field-dependency rules, which helps users understand when certain patch fields are valid. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus sibling tools like sync_database or get_database, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the dependency rules.

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