cloud_update_database_token

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a critical behavioral trait: 'Permissions completely replace existing ones - include all desired permissions.' This is valuable. However, it does not clarify whether omitted fields (like description) remain unchanged, nor does it mention response behavior, authorization requirements, or reversibility.

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 well-structured: a clear opening sentence, a permissions format note, and bulleted examples. It is slightly padded with phrases like 'with precise control' that add little value, but overall the content is purposeful and the examples earn their place.

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?

The description covers the main operational detail (permission replacement) and provides examples, which is good for a moderate-complexity tool. However, it lacks information about the return value or success/failure response, and it does not explicitly state that omitting optional fields leaves them unchanged. Given no output schema and no annotations, these gaps leave the description incomplete.

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 input schema already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds substantial value by explaining the permissions format in detail, providing concrete examples (no-access, read-only, mixed, full access), and clarifying the replacement semantics. This goes beyond the schema's generic 'Array of permission objects'.

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 begins with a clear verb+resource phrase: 'Update an existing database token for InfluxDB Cloud-Dedicated/Clustered cluster.' It explicitly states what can be updated (description and/or permissions) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cloud_create_database_token and cloud_delete_database_token.

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 makes clear this tool is for updating existing tokens, and it provides essential usage guidance about permissions replacing existing ones. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use (e.g., 'use create for new tokens'), though the context with sibling tools makes this somewhat implicit.

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