update_metadata

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 only says 'update' and provides field hints; it does not disclose whether metadata is overwritten partially or fully, what effect is_certified has, whether permissions are needed, or what side effects occur.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter hints. The 'ТЗ 1.1' token is mildly extraneous, but overall the structure is economical and readable.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no schema-level parameter descriptions, this is insufficient. It provides only two parameter hints and no behavioral or usage context; the output schema reduces the need to describe returns, but the input side remains under-specified.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It usefully documents the column_descriptions JSON format and the allowed layer values, but it says nothing about the required table_name or about owner, description, and is_certified. Most parameters remain ambiguous.

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 clear action ('Обновить метаописание таблицы') and a clear resource ('Knowledge Base'). It is distinctive enough against the sibling list, though the internal spec code 'ТЗ 1.1' adds little and 'метаописание' is slightly vague.

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 implies when to use the tool—when updating table metadata in the Knowledge Base—but gives no explicit guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives. With siblings like refresh_schema, search_knowledge, and sync_datahub nearby, the lack of routing guidance is a real gap.

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