modify_parameter

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

With no annotations provided, the description fails to disclose key behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., whether parameter changes cause a restart beyond the forcerestart parameter), authorization requirements, or rate limits. The idempotency token is mentioned, but overall transparency is low.

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 structured with a clear 'Args' and 'Returns' section, but it is somewhat verbose, repeating parameter names that appear in the schema. Still, it is adequately front-loaded with the main action.

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 complexity of 8 parameters and no output schema beyond a mention of a return type, the description covers parameters and return type but lacks broader context like workflow or prerequisites. It is minimally complete for a modification tool but missing usage scenarios.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by detailing each parameter's type, default, and example usage (e.g., for parameters and switch_time_mode). It adds meaning beyond the schema, though some parameters like 'switch_time' lack full context.

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 begins with 'Modify RDS instance parameters,' clearly stating the verb (modify) and resource (RDS instance parameters). It distinguishes from sibling tools that handle other operations like creating instances, adding tags, or modifying specs, making the tool's specific function unmistakable.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like modify_db_instance_spec or restart_db_instance. It merely lists parameters and return type, leaving the AI agent without context for appropriate selection among similar modification tools.

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