mirrored_database_update_definition

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

Annotations establish that this is a read/write operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds the significant long-running trait and the two input modes (inline parts vs directory path), which go beyond the annotations. It does not disclose whether the update replaces the entire definition or merges changes, but it provides meaningful behavioral context.

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 short sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and the long-running warning, and the second efficiently communicates the two accepted input modes. Every word earns its place.

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 long-running mutation with no output schema, the description leaves gaps: it does not state whether `parts` and `partsDirectoryPath` are mutually exclusive, whether the definition is fully replaced, or how to check completion/status. The sibling status tools are about mirroring, not definition updates, so an agent may be uncertain about the call's result or follow-up.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by framing `parts` and `partsDirectoryPath` as alternative input modes ('inline or a directory path'), clarifying the relationship between the two optional parameters beyond their individual schema descriptions.

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: updating a mirrored database's definition, and flags it as long-running. It is clear among the many sibling update_definition tools because it names the mirrored database resource, but it does not explicitly contrast with mirrored_database_update, so the distinction relies on the word 'definition' and the parameter names.

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 is provided. The description does not mention alternatives such as mirrored_database_get_definition for reading or mirrored_database_update for non-definition updates, nor does it explain when to choose this tool over the many other resource-specific update_definition tools. Usage is only implied by the name and action.

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