postgres_update

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'update existing records' without warning about permanent data overwrite or the risk of updating all rows if the 'where' condition is empty or too broad. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that is efficient and free of fluff. It does not attempt to explain what the schema already covers, though it is somewhat bare.

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 tool with two nested object parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse to prepare an agent for safe usage. It does not discuss return values, potential side effects, or provide any usage example, and sibling differentiation is entirely absent.

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?

All three parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional semantic value. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the meaning of table_name, data, and where.

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 (existing records in a table). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like postgres_insert and postgres_delete, though it doesn't explicitly mention the WHERE-clause mechanism that controls scope.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as postgres_query for raw SQL updates, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The single sentence offers no context for selection.

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