update_query

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'Update', implying mutation, but gives no details on idempotency, error behavior (e.g., missing queryId), or side effects. The behavioral traits are under-disclosed.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it lacks structure (e.g., bullet points or sections) that could improve readability for a tool with many parameters. Still, it earns a high score for brevity.

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 the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It omits return values, prerequisites, and behavior for optional fields. The description needs to cover more contextual details to be complete.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all 10 parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema's brief descriptions, but does not detract. Schema already provides sufficient parameter semantics.

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 action 'Update' and the resource 'an existing query in Redash', distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_query or archive_query. However, it lacks differentiation from other update tools (e.g., update_alert) and does not specify which fields can be updated, limiting its clarity.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus create_query or archive_query, nor does it mention that queryId is required or that other parameters are optional. The agent receives no context for decision-making.

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