add_column

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals only that a column is added — a permanent schema mutation — but says nothing about irreversibility, required privileges, behavior if the column already exists, table locking, or interaction with the sibling transaction tools (begin_transaction/commit_transaction/rollback_transaction).

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?

A single efficient sentence with zero filler, front-loaded with the action verb. It is appropriately sized for the information it conveys, though the brevity is partly a product of under-specification rather than dense content.

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 schema-mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is thin. It covers basic purpose but leaves the agent without usage routing, behavioral expectations, or error-handling context. Given the existence of powerful siblings like execute_ddl and transaction tools, more context would meaningfully help an agent select and invoke this tool safely.

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% and all five parameters (type, table, column, nullable, default_value) already carry meaningful descriptions in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds marginal context by implying the column must be 'nova' (new), but provides no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema documents.

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 ('Adiciona' / adds) and resource ('uma nova coluna a uma tabela existente' / a new column to an existing table). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like add_constraint and create_index by the object being added, though it does not explicitly name or contrast alternatives.

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 is given for when to use add_column versus its siblings. Notably, execute_ddl could also add a column via ALTER TABLE, and add_constraint is a closely related schema-mutation tool, yet the description provides no decision criteria, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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