tables_db_update_rows

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the bulk update behavior and partial field updates, but fails to disclose critical traits: whether this is a destructive mutation, what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, how errors are handled, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 are front-loaded with key information: the main action and conditional behavior. However, the second sentence could be more integrated, and there's some redundancy with schema details (e.g., 'only specific fields' is implied by the schema's description of 'data'). Overall, it's efficient but not perfectly structured.

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 bulk update tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., safety, permissions), output format, error handling, and explicit differentiation from siblings. While the schema covers parameters well, the 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 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it clarifies that 'data' should include 'only specific fields to be updated' and hints at 'queries' usage, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or examples. 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 verb ('Update all rows') and resource ('rows'), specifying that it updates rows matching queries or all rows if no queries. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'tables_db_update_row' (singular) by indicating bulk updates, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other update tools like 'tables_db_update' or 'tables_db_upsert_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 through the conditional 'if no queries are submitted then all rows are updated,' suggesting when to use queries vs. not. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'tables_db_update_row' (single row) or 'tables_db_upsert_rows' (upsert behavior), and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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