Saved large-file columns

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally; the description adds what actually gets removed ('columns kept on disk'). It does not say whether cleared columns can be regenerated, whether confirmation is required, or what 'list' returns — meaningful gaps for a destructive op.

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 short sentences with the verb and resource front-loaded and a useful pointer to the related tool. The nested quoting around "list" and "clear" is slightly awkward but not wasteful.

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?

With destructive annotations present but no output schema, the description covers the mutation side adequately but leaves the read side underspecified — an agent can't tell what a 'list' returns or in what form. For a 2-parameter tool this is acceptable but not complete.

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% and there are no property descriptions, so the description must carry the load. It does explain the enum meanings ('list'/'clear') and that scope can be all files or one file, which effectively documents the optional `file` parameter, but it never names `file` or says what it should contain (path? name?).

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 gives a specific resource ('columns kept on disk from large files') and two concrete operations ('list', 'clear'). It clearly distinguishes the resource from siblings and points back to the producing tool (large_file_plan save_columns), though it doesn't name a competing sibling to steer away from.

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?

It states the two actions and their scope ('all, or one file'), which implies when each is used, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or prerequisite such as a required prior large_file_plan run. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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