update_row

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that this is a mutation operation ('update'), specifies it works on existing rows via primary key, and describes the return structure. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, error conditions, permissions needed, or transactional behavior, which are important for a write operation.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by organized sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value: the first states what the tool does, and the subsequent sections provide essential usage details without redundancy.

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?

For a 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations but with an output schema (implied by the Returns section), the description does well: it explains all parameters and the return structure. However, it could be more complete by addressing error handling, constraints, or security considerations given it's a write operation.

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 must compensate. It provides clear semantic explanations for all 3 parameters: 'table' (name with schema notation), 'id' (primary key value), and 'data' (dictionary of column-value pairs). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify data types or constraints.

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' and resource 'existing row by primary key', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'insert_row' (creates new) and 'delete_row' (removes), though it doesn't explicitly mention these alternatives in the description itself.

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 when you need to modify an existing row identified by its primary key, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like 'execute_query' for complex updates or prerequisites. The context is clear but lacks explicit when/when-not statements.

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