update_sql_pool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden and does well: it states partial-update behavior, per-field 'omit to keep current' semantics, admin role requirement, and beta/preview API status. It does not describe side effects, reversibility, or failure behavior, but the most important behavioral trait is explicit.

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-structured: a one-line summary, an Args block, then requirement/caution notes. It is not bloated, though the repeated 'or omit to keep current' phrase is slightly redundant but aids 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?

For a 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers the essential operational context: purpose, parameter semantics, permission requirement, and beta status. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is unnecessary, and no critical call-blocking information is missing.

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%, so the description must carry parameter documentation and does so completely: each of the seven parameters gets a clear semantic meaning, including the name-or-GUID format for workspace, the 1-100 range for max_percent, and the 'omit to keep current' behavior for optional fields. This goes well beyond the raw schema types and defaults.

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 ('Update') and resource ('existing SQL pool') and immediately clarifies partial-update semantics ('Only the parameters you supply are changed'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling create/delete/list operations, even without naming them.

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 clear context for when to use: modifying an existing SQL pool, with an explicit prerequisite ('Requires workspace admin role') and a caution about beta API status. It does not name alternative tools or give when-not-to-use exclusions, so it stops short of fully explicit routing.

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