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

Annotations flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description goes beyond that by spelling out the actual data-loss semantics: omitted options are removed from cells and a type change converts every cell. That is exactly the risk context an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation, then the destructive select-option rules, then the type-conversion warning. Every sentence carries behavioral 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?

For a destructive mutation tool with nested options and no output schema, the description covers the main hazards (option removal, type conversion). It leaves out permission requirements and how renaming/type changes affect existing cell values, which would round it out.

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 coverage is only 29%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the tricky `options` semantics (full list required, renameFrom, omission removes cells), but it says nothing about baseId, name, description, or the type enum's conversion behavior beyond one sentence.

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 concrete verbs and resource: 'Rename a field, change its type or options, or set its description.' This distinguishes it clearly from create_field and delete_field without needing to name them, though no sibling is explicitly referenced.

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?

Usage is implied (updating an existing field) and the description gives procedural detail for select fields (send the full option list). But it never states when to use this versus alternatives like create_field, or what prerequisites exist.

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