tables_db_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't mention permissions required, whether changes are reversible, side effects, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency about how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Update a database') and includes the key identifier ('by its unique ID'). Every word serves a purpose, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 a database update tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions or side effects, doesn't differentiate from sibling tools, and lacks context on usage. For a mutation operation in a rich toolset, this minimal description leaves critical gaps for an agent to operate effectively.

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%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (database_id, name, enabled) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain parameter interactions, constraints, or usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 'Update a database by its unique ID' states the verb ('update') and resource ('database'), but it's vague about what specifically gets updated. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like tables_db_update_table or tables_db_update_row, which also update database components. The purpose is clear at a high level but lacks specificity compared to alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like tables_db_update_table and tables_db_update_row that update specific database elements, the description offers no context on prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate, or what distinguishes it from other update operations. This leaves the agent guessing about the correct application.

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