update_database

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

The annotations set destructiveHint=false, but 'Rebuild' implies a destructive operation (overwriting existing data). The description fails to clarify the actual behavior, such as whether the database is deleted and recreated, if network access is required, or what happens to custom modifications. This contradiction between annotation and description is confusing.

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 sentence with no filler words. It is concise and to the point. However, it may be too brief, sacrificing critical behavioral details 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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks essential context: what 'rebuild' entails, side effects (data loss? downtime?), prerequisites (e.g., network connectivity), and success/failure indicators. For a potentially destructive operation, this is incomplete.

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 has zero parameters, so the input schema is fully covered. The description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description meets that by simply stating the action.

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 verb 'Rebuild' and the resource 'local OWASP database from upstream sources', providing a specific and unambiguous purpose. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'database_status' or 'search_owasp' by describing a write operation on the entire database.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, frequency, or scenarios where a different tool (e.g., 'get_cwe' for specific data) would be more appropriate. This leaves the AI agent without context for selection.

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