update_database

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only mentions update semantics but omits behavioral traits like authorization requirements, idempotency, or side effects (e.g., impacting existing connections). This is insufficient 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?

Two sentences with zero wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the partial update behavior is immediately explained. Highly concise.

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 high parameter count (14) and no annotations, the description is minimal. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., database_id must exist) or return values (though output schema exists). While it covers the core action, more context would improve agent decision-making.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds the important nuance that omitted fields remain unchanged, which goes beyond the schema. This compensates for the lack of per-parameter semantic depth.

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 identifies the verb ('Update') and the resource ('a database connection's properties'). Among siblings like create_database and delete_database, it is unambiguous as an update operation.

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 explicitly states 'Only the fields you provide will be updated; omitted fields remain unchanged', which clarifies the partial update behavior. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like create_database or delete_database for when to use this tool versus others.

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