superset_rls_update

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

The description discloses a critical behavioral trait: 'Superset PUT API REPLACES the roles and tables fields entirely.' It explains the risk of wiping data if only one field is passed and mandates that both be provided together. No annotations are present, so this warning is essential and excellently highlighted.

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 well structured: a one-line purpose, a prominently placed CRITICAL warning, numbered steps, and a clear Args list. All content is essential and non-redundant. The warning is front-loaded to ensure the agent notices it before making changes.

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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, conditional requirements, destructive replacement behavior) and absence of annotations, the description fully covers the critical context. It explains the prerequisite (retrieve current rule), the conditional parameter requirements, and the meaning of each field. The output schema exists, so return values need not be described.

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 0%, so the description carries full responsibility for parameter meanings. It defines every parameter in the Args section, including types (e.g., 'List of dataset IDs'), constraints (e.g., 'REQUIRED if roles is specified'), and allowed values (e.g., filter_type: 'Regular' or 'Base'). This is far beyond what the input schema provides.

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 opens with 'Update an RLS rule.' which is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly establishes the tool's purpose. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like superset_rls_create, superset_rls_list, superset_rls_get, and superset_rls_delete.

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 explicit safe-update steps: '1. First get the current rule via rls_list 2. Pass BOTH roles AND tables'. This tells the agent when to use the tool and references an alternative tool for a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool (e.g., for creating a new rule), so it stops short of full guidance.

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