liara_update_database

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'update' implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this requires admin permissions, if changes are reversible, potential downtime during resizing/version updates, rate limits, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence: 'Update database settings such as plan (resize) or version'. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing the two update types (resize vs version change) for clarity.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after the update (e.g., confirmation message, error handling), doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions or side effects, and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools. For a tool that modifies database infrastructure, more context is needed for safe and effective use.

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 schema already documents all three parameters (name, planID, version) with clear descriptions. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'plan (resize)' and 'version', which aligns with schema but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or constraints beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose: 'Update database settings such as plan (resize) or version'. It specifies the verb ('update'), resource ('database settings'), and key operations (resizing plan, changing version). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'liara_resize_database' or 'liara_restart_database', which reduces clarity about when to use each.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, dependencies, or compare it to similar tools like 'liara_resize_database' (which might handle only resizing) or 'liara_restart_database' (which might handle restarts). Without this context, the agent must guess based on tool names alone.

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