Update Database Row

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the target row must be 'existing' and how the title maps to the Kanban row title, but it says nothing about partial-failure behavior for a batch, revision conflicts, or how linkedDocId affects the row.

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?

Two short sentences, the write action is front-loaded, and the second sentence carries actionable guidance rather than filler. No waste.

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?

An output schema and a fully documented 8-parameter schema relieve much of the burden, but for a nested-map batch mutation marked non-idempotent the description should say what happens on partial application or stale revision. As written it is thin relative to the tool's complexity.

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%, including a detailed cells map description and expectedRevision semantics, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's note about including `title` in the cells map largely restates the schema's 'Use `title` for the built-in row title', though the Kanban framing adds a small amount of context.

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 specific verb+resource: batch-update multiple cells on an existing AFFiNE database row. An agent can distinguish this from update_table_cell and add_database_row by the 'database row' + 'cells' phrasing, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the row must already exist, and cells is the batch mechanism. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over update_block, update_table_cell, or read_database_cells first, and no exclusions or prerequisites such as required permissions.

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