remove_chooser_column

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

Goes well past the destructiveHint=true annotation by disclosing that the column owns its RowValues so no cross-column re-sync is needed, that row COUNT is unchanged, that removal is a single undo step, that the table is compiled and saved, and what the failure/no-op outcomes look like (success=false with save_error, or saved=false with a note). This is rich behavioral context an agent could not infer from 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?

Front-loaded with the core action and inverse-sibling reference, then layers side effects and edge cases. Dense but every clause carries information; the parenthetical asides make it slightly heavier than it needs to be for a two-parameter tool.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description inlines the full return shape (table_path, removed_column_index, previous/new_column_count, column_type, saved, save_error, note), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. Combined with the mutation semantics and failure modes, nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value by clarifying that omitting column_index is equivalent to -1 and that this matches remove_chooser_row's default convention, plus what 'index' scopes to (the column, whose cells travel with it). Slightly above baseline, though much of it overlaps the schema text.

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 a specific verb+resource ('Remove a column from a UChooserTable by index') and explicitly positions itself as the inverse of add_chooser_column_to_table. It also pre-emptively distinguishes itself from remove_chooser_row, which an agent could otherwise confuse with it.

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?

Explicitly says when NOT to use it ('use remove_chooser_row for that' when the row count should change), documents the default-selection behavior for the optional parameter, and notes the no-op case for column-less tables. Alternatives and edge conditions are both covered.

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