rename_column

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions dry_run support, indicating a non-committing mode, but does not describe mutation effects, error behavior, impact on related objects (e.g., references), or reversibility. The behavioral transparency is minimal for a mutation tool.

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, compact sentence that leads with the core action and includes the dry_run capability. There is no filler or redundant information; every word earns its place.

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?

Given six parameters (three required) and no annotations or output schema, the description is too sparse. It lacks information about success/failure responses, what dry_run returns, preconditions, or side effects. An agent would struggle to call this tool correctly without external knowledge.

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 adds meaning by clarifying that 'Name and/or Code' map to new_name and new_code, and that dry_run is available. However, it does not explain the required parameters (model_id, table_ref, column_ref) beyond what their names imply, leaving some semantic gaps.

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 verb 'Rename' and the resource 'a column', and specifies what can be renamed ('Name and/or Code'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like rename_table (different resource) and update_column (broader update operation). The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_column or rename_table. No exclusions or conditions are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone. The mention of dry_run hints at a testing use case but doesn't clarify when to use it.

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