Update documents in an Infino table

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

Annotations only state destructiveHint=true, which the description confirms and expands upon. It adds meaningful behavioral details: the operation is strictly 1:1, embeddings are generated locally when omitted, and memory:// storage is unsupported. This goes beyond the annotation hints and gives an agent important operational expectations.

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 compact and front-loaded, starting with the core operation and the key constraint. Each sentence delivers distinct operational information without redundancy or filler.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, cardinality constraint, embedding behavior, and storage requirement. It does not specify what happens on count mismatch, but the 'must equal' phrasing implies an error condition, so the definition is still largely complete.

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?

The schema already describes each parameter, but the description adds the crucial relationship between predicate and documents—that the number of matched rows must equal the number of replacement documents. It also explains how vector omission in documents is handled, which is not apparent from the schema alone.

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 uses the specific verb 'replace' and identifies the resource as 'rows matching a SQL predicate', with a clear 1:1 mapping to new documents. This distinguishes it from sibling operations like add or delete, even without naming them.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: replacing existing rows selected by a predicate, with a count equality requirement. It also gives a necessary precondition ('Requires durable storage'). However, it does not explicitly contrast this with alternatives like delete-then-add or SQL updates.

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