update_database

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses product-specific limitations (e.g., Core/Enterprise can only modify retentionPeriod) and the Core v3.2.0+ requirement, adding meaningful behavioral context. It does not mention authorization, reversibility, or side effects, but the included constraints provide more than minimal transparency.

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 two sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second efficiently maps product variants to allowed fields. Every clause earns its place with no filler or redundancy, and it is structured to front-load the primary intent.

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?

Given the parameter count (6) and no output schema, the description covers all major usage scenarios across InfluxDB product types and includes version constraints. It does not describe return values or error cases, but for a configuration update tool with strong parameter schema coverage, the provided context is largely sufficient.

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 documents each parameter with 100% coverage, so the description need not repeat definitions. It adds value by grouping parameters by product type, clarifying that fields like maxTables and maxColumnsPerTable are only for Cloud Dedicated/Clustered, which is not immediately obvious 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 clearly states the tool updates InfluxDB database configuration and specifies exact fields per product variant, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_database and delete_database. The verb 'update' plus the resource 'database configuration' is specific and unambiguous.

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 guidance on which parameters to use for each InfluxDB product type (Cloud Dedicated/Clustered, Cloud Serverless, Core/Enterprise) and includes a version prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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