update_procedure

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It prominently discloses that the body is executed verbatim as DDL and warns that this can redefine the procedure. This is substantial, though it does not mention permissions or side effects on dependent objects.

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 well organized into function, supported environments, caution, and parameter docs. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important risk warning is front-loaded before the parameter list.

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?

The description covers the target platforms, the overwrite/DDL risk, and all parameters. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be detailed. Minor gaps like required permissions and effects on existing dependencies are present, but the description is more than minimally viable.

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 0%, and the Args block fully compensates by giving each parameter meaningful context: workspace and item accept names or GUIDs, qualified_name is dot-separated with an example, and body is described as the AS ... section. This adds real value over the bare schema fields.

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 'Redefine a stored procedure via CREATE OR ALTER PROCEDURE', which is a specific verb, resource, and mechanism. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like create_procedure, drop_procedure, and get_procedure.

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 gives useful context about supported environments and a caution to ensure the body matches user intent, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives like create_procedure or execute_sql. Usage timing is mostly implied by the tool name and description.

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