update_column

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it updates settings without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, potential impacts on existing data, rate limits, or what the response looks like. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and enumerates the updatable fields without unnecessary words. Every element serves a clear purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 3 parameters, low schema coverage (33%), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It covers what fields can be updated but lacks context on prerequisites, side effects, error conditions, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

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 low (33%), with only 'internalName' documented. The description lists updatable fields (displayName, description, required, etc.), which helps clarify the 'updates' parameter's structure. However, it doesn't explain 'listName' or provide details on field constraints, formats, or interactions, leaving gaps in parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the action ('Update settings') and resource ('an existing column'), specifying the exact fields that can be modified. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_column' (creation) and 'delete_column' (removal), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'update_item' or 'update_view' which modify different resources.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_column' for new columns or 'update_item' for modifying list items. It mentions 'existing column' but doesn't clarify prerequisites (e.g., column must exist) or exclusions (e.g., cannot change internalName).

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