peaka_update_query

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint and destructiveHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations: the schedule parameter is only relevant for materialized queries and is ignored for plain queries, and at least one of displayName, inputQuery, or schedule must be supplied. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded. The core purpose appears in the first sentence, followed by a terse constraint and then a practical projectId workflow. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler.

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 five parameters, no output schema, and an update operation, the description covers the essential context: prerequisite lookup, required fields, and schedule limitations. It does not describe the return value, but the tool's purpose and invocation requirements are otherwise complete enough for an agent to use it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by stating the at-least-one-of-three constraint, which is not captured in the schema's required list, and by reinforcing the materialized-only schedule behavior.

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 and resource: "Update an existing saved query in the Peaka project." It further clarifies what can be changed (display name, SQL body, schedule), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like peaka_create_query, peaka_get_query, or peaka_delete_query.

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?

It gives clear context that this is for an existing saved query and requires at least one updatable field. It also provides a concrete workflow: call peaka_list_projects first if projectId is unknown and remember the chosen projectId. It does not explicitly say 'use peaka_create_query for new queries,' but the existing-vs-new distinction is clear enough.

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