db_update_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the operation mutates the user, notes a Kafka-only constraint on access_level, and states what is returned. However, it omits side effects, required permissions, reversibility, and whether password and access_level can be updated together.

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 short, front-loaded with the action, and organized into a scannable Args/Returns format. The Returns line is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, but it does not add meaningful clutter.

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 small mutation tool, the description covers all parameters and the return value, which is the minimum needed to make a plausible call. It is incomplete about the relationship to db_update_user_access_control, whether both update fields can be supplied at once, and what valid access_level values are.

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?

The schema has 0% parameter descriptions, so the Args block is the only documentation for all four parameters. It adds real meaning beyond the raw schema by explaining database_id can be an ID or label, password is the new secret, and access_level is a permission level limited to Kafka. It could specify accepted values and optionality more clearly, but it meaningfully compensates for the bare schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Update a database user's password or permissions,' and the Args list clarifies exactly which fields can be modified. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely named sibling db_update_user_access_control, so it misses the full differentiation credit.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as db_update_user_access_control or db_create_user. The only contextual hint, that access_level is Kafka-only, is embedded in a parameter definition rather than framed as usage direction.

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