databases_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Update' which implies mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, side effects (e.g., impact on users or data), rate limits, or error conditions. The description adds no context beyond the basic action.

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 and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place without redundancy or fluff.

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 (a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., safety, permissions), doesn't explain what 'update' entails beyond the ID reference, and omits guidance on alternatives or outcomes. For a tool that modifies databases, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 meaning beyond what the schema provides—it mentions 'by its unique ID' which aligns with 'database_id' but doesn't elaborate on parameter interactions or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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') and resource ('a database'), specifying it's done 'by its unique ID'. This distinguishes it from other update operations in the sibling list (like updating attributes, collections, or documents). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other database-level operations like 'databases_get' or 'databases_delete' beyond the verb.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing database ID), contrast with sibling tools like 'databases_create' or 'databases_delete', or specify use cases (e.g., renaming, enabling/disabling). Usage is implied only by the verb 'Update'.

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