update

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'update data', which is obvious, but does not mention side effects, transactionality, required permissions, or any risks. The mutation implication is present but no additional context is given.

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 that directly states the tool's function. There is no unnecessary verbiage, and the information is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 tool is a mutation operation with no annotations, no output schema, and a very minimal description. It lacks usage guidance and behavioral transparency, and the presence of sibling tools like 'execute' and 'execute_ddl' creates ambiguity that is not addressed. The simple parameter schema is well-covered, but overall the description is incomplete for safe and correct invocation.

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 100% coverage for the single parameter, and its description ('the UPDATE SQL statement to execute') accurately describes it. The tool description adds no further semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('execute UPDATE') and resource ('data in the table'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like query, insert, and delete. It is clear and unambiguous, though it could be slightly more explicit about what 'update' entails.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as the generic 'execute' or 'execute_ddl'. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the intended scope.

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