tables_db_update_row

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the patch method for partial updates, which is useful, but lacks critical information: it doesn't specify required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, error handling for invalid IDs, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 concise with two sentences that directly address the tool's function and method. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the second sentence could be slightly more polished (e.g., 'Using the patch method, you can pass only specific fields to update').

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 (mutation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, idempotency), output format, and clear differentiation from sibling tools. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context for safe and effective use is insufficient.

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 already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by hinting that 'data' should include 'only columns and value pairs to be updated' (which the schema already states) and mentioning the 'patch method', but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the action ('Update a row') and the mechanism ('by its unique ID'), which distinguishes it from bulk update tools like 'tables_db_update_rows'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'tables_db_upsert_row' which might also update rows, making it slightly less specific than ideal.

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 minimal guidance on when to use this tool. It mentions the 'patch method' for partial updates but doesn't clarify when to choose this over alternatives like 'tables_db_update_rows' (for bulk updates) or 'tables_db_upsert_row' (for upserts). No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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