update_table

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

Description says 'update in place' implying modification, consistent with readOnlyHint=false. However, no additional behavioral details beyond annotations; no mention of overwrite behavior or side effects.

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 terse sentences, no fluff, critical info front-loaded. Every word contributes.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description omits what 'update in place' means for previous results (overwrite vs new version). Functional but leaves some questions for a validation tool.

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% with adequate parameter descriptions. Description adds context for source_version ('pin...latest'), but largely redundant with schema. Baseline 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?

Description clearly states 'Re-run validation on a previously processed table', specifying verb and resource. No ambiguity; distinguishes from siblings like add_validated_rows.

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?

Provides guidance on the source_version parameter but lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives. Implied for re-running validation, but could contrast with add_validated_rows or start_table_validation.

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