workload_update_statement

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the write/idempotent profile is covered structurally. The description adds the important behavioral note that it saves the entire workload, not just the one statement, which is genuinely useful context. It does not address permissions, failure behavior, or return format.

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?

A single efficient sentence, front-loaded with the core action. There is slight redundancy between 'write ... back' and 'save the workload', but no 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 mutating tool with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description covers the primary action and the workload-level side effect but omits the database parameter, error conditions, and any note on which workload state is affected. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for four parameters. It loosely implies sql, name and statement_id, but the optional 'database' parameter is never mentioned and no parameter meaning, format, or default is clarified beyond the schema titles.

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 (write/save), resource (one statement of a saved workload) and the source of the SQL (edited in the SQL Editor). This distinguishes it reasonably from siblings like workload_save or sql_editor_save_draft, though it never names a sibling 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 implied by 'SQL edited in the SQL Editor', putting it in the post-edit workflow, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or any mention of alternatives like workload_save or workload_define. The agent must infer the context.

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