upsert_embedding

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

The description discloses the core upsert behavior (insert or update in place). However, it does not explain whether the update is partial (only provided columns) or full, nor does it disclose any side effects on unspecified columns. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only conveys the basic write operation.

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 with no filler. It immediately states the operation and the key condition, earning its place efficiently.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, this description is too thin. It omits operational context like how `schema` defaults to 'public', how metadata interacts with the row update, and what the output schema contains. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the missing parameter and behavior details.

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 only 14% (only `metadata` has a description). The description adds meaning for `id_value` (the existence check) but does not clarify the roles of `table`, `id_column`, `embedding`, `embedding_column`, `schema`, or the metadata object, leaving most parameters under-specified.

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 states a specific action ('Insert a row or update it in place') with a clear resource (row) and condition (`id_value` already exists). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling read/query tools like similarity_search or describe_vector_table.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for writing/updating embedding rows or that search tools should be used for querying, despite the sibling tool names making this somewhat implicit.

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