Update Database Row

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a non-idempotent write. The description adds only the `title` behavior, which is already documented in the schema for `cells`. It does not disclose side effects, return values, error conditions, or how openWorldHint manifests. Minimal added value beyond annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action and a key usage tip. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 7-parameter schema with full descriptions and an output schema, the description is adequate for selecting the tool. However, it offers little context about edge cases (e.g., what happens if a column doesn't exist, or the effect of `createOption`). The annotations and schema fill most gaps, but the description is thin for a mutation tool with openWorldHint=true.

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%, and each parameter has a meaningful description (e.g., `createOption` defaults, `linkedDocId` behavior). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Batch update multiple cells on an existing AFFiNE database row.' It uses a specific verb ('update'), specifies the resource ('existing AFFiNE database row'), and adds a unique detail about updating the Kanban row title via `title`. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_database_row and delete_database_row.

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: it is for updating an existing row, not creating or deleting one. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use add_database_row to create a new row'). The 'existing' wording implies the scope, but the guidance is not as explicit as tools that name sibling tools.

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