update_dataset_sql

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the mutation risk is partly covered; the description usefully adds that the change is in-place and that a backup is created by default. The backup behavior is genuine context beyond the annotation, though it does not state permissions, reversibility, or how to restore.

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?

Two tight sentences, with the safety warning front-loaded right after the action. Nothing is wasted and the most important information appears first.

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?

With annotations, a full output schema, and 100% parameter coverage, the description need only cover what structured data cannot. It covers in-place mutation and backup defaults well, but omits any routing against the ambiguous 'modify_dataset_sql' sibling.

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%, with each parameter documented in the schema (including new_sql validity and backup_first's recommendation). The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Update the SQL query for a QuickSight dataset'), so the operation is unambiguous. However, it offers no differentiation from the near-identical sibling 'modify_dataset_sql' (or 'update_dataset_definition'), leaving the agent unable to tell which SQL-mutation tool is intended.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite a sibling named 'modify_dataset_sql' that appears to do the same job. The agent is left to guess which tool applies, and the description never states prerequisites such as needing 'get_dataset_sql' first.

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