faucet_update

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

With only readOnlyHint=false provided, the description adds real behavioral context: the filter is mandatory specifically to prevent accidental full-table updates, and PATCH permission on the table is required. These are destructive-safety and auth details the annotation does not convey.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core action, the record semantics, the safety constraint, and the permission requirement front-loaded. No filler, though the record clause is mildly redundant with the schema.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, the mandatory filter safeguard, and the required permission. It omits any return-value expectation or confirmation behavior, but nothing critical to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 four parameters. The description reinforces that record holds column values to set and that filter selects the target rows, but adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a clear verb (update) and resource (records in a database table matching a filter), which distinguishes it from faucet_insert and faucet_delete. It does not explicitly name a sibling or draw the line against faucet_raw_sql, so it stops short of a 5.

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 names a safety constraint (filter required) and a permission prerequisite, but never says when to choose this over faucet_raw_sql, faucet_query, or faucet_insert. There is no when-not guidance and no alternative routing, leaving usage largely to inference.

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