Database Updates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so well: it declares the operation is read-only ('runs nothing') and routes the mutating action elsewhere, which is the critical safety fact. It omits permissions/auth requirements and whether it needs a live DB connection, so it falls short of a full 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the read-only guarantee before the routing advice. Zero filler; every clause either defines the tool or steers the agent to the correct sibling.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not needed. For a parameterless, read-only status tool, the description supplies scope, safety, and the follow-up action path — nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4. The description correctly adds no invented parameter guidance.

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 and resource ('List pending database updates') and immediately differentiates itself from the sibling that applies them ('read-only; runs nothing'). The framing question ('did the modules I just updated leave schema behind?') makes the intent unambiguous to an agent.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative paths for applying updates — `drush_command("updatedb")` and the `drush_updb` tool — and gives a precondition (after a database backup). It tells the agent both when to use this tool and when to use a different one.

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