etabs_edit_table

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

The description explicitly states the tool can 'delete rows', and the schema exposes delete_where and replace_rows (a full-table overwrite), yet annotations declare destructiveHint=false, which in MCP means additive-only updates. This is a direct contradiction between the stated behavior and the structured safety signal. (The description's other useful additions, e.g. the apply/dry-run flow and the import-log return, do not offset it.)

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core operation and the apply step come first. The trailing sentence about the import log is mildly redundant given an output schema exists, but the structure is otherwise tight.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with five edit modes, the description gives an adequate but incomplete picture: it omits the replace_rows full-table overwrite (the most destructive mode), says nothing about the editable-table prerequisite, and relies on the output schema for the return shape. Adequate minimum, with a notable gap.

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 86%, so the schema already carries the parameter semantics (apply dry-run, match/set, append_rows, delete_where, replace_rows). The description only maps loosely onto change/append/delete and never mentions the replace-whole-table mode at all, adding little beyond the schema baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Edit a model table'), enumerates the operations (read, change/append/delete rows, apply), and frames it against the Interactive Database editor workflow. It implies but never names the read-only siblings (etabs_list_tables, etabs_get_table) that an agent must choose between, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied via the analogy to the Interactive Database editor and the 'then apply' workflow. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no statement that table_key must be an editable table (that constraint lives only in the schema), and no routing away from etabs_get_table or etabs_call_api.

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