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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'Max 100 fields per table' constraint, which is useful context not present in annotations, but it doesn't describe permissions, reversibility, or side effects of rename/delete beyond what annotations imply.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste: the core operations are front-loaded, followed by a key constraint. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a mutation tool with rich schema coverage and annotations that carry the safety profile, the description supplies the essential operation semantics and a field limit. It is largely complete for correct invocation, though it could add more context about prerequisites or the destructive nature of DELETE beyond annotations.

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 schema already documents all six parameters including conditional requirements (e.g., fieldId for UPDATE/DELETE, type for ADD). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses specific verbs (add, rename, delete) and a clear resource (fields on a table), and the schema's operation enum reinforces this. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like ap_create_table or ap_delete_table, but the resource is distinct enough that an agent can tell them apart.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of related tools like ap_list_tables (which the schema references for fieldId). Usage is only implied by the operation enum.

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