update_data_table_row

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states that only fields in 'data' are modified and gives an example. However, it does not mention what happens if the row does not exist, whether the update is idempotent, or any permission requirements. The partial update behavior is clear, but other details are missing.

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 only three sentences: first sentence states purpose, second explains partial update behavior, third gives an example for the data parameter. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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 3 required parameters, partial update behavior, and an existing output schema (not shown), the description covers the core behavior and an example for data. It does not explain return values (but output schema handles that). It could mention that the row must exist or error handling, but for a relatively simple tool, it is adequately 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that the 'data' parameter is a JSON string of fields to update and provides an example. However, it does not describe 'row_name' or 'data_table_path', leaving their formats ambiguous (e.g., does row_name refer to the first column value?). The partial explanation for 'data' is helpful but incomplete for all parameters.

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 'Update specific fields on an existing row (partial update)', which is a specific verb + resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_data_table_row, delete_data_table_row, etc., by focusing on partial updates to existing rows.

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 modifying specific fields while preserving others, but does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use this tool versus alternatives like set_data_table_row (if it existed) or other update tools. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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