rename_table

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 mentions dry_run support, which is useful, but it does not describe the mutation behavior, side effects on references, reversibility, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise, front-loading the core action. However, it is under-specified; it omits crucial parameter details and behavioral information. The brevity is not a virtue here because it leaves the agent with too little guidance.

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 the tool's mutation nature, lack of annotations, no output schema, and 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description is far from complete. It does not explain return values, side effects, or parameter semantics, leaving critical gaps for correct invocation.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description only minimally maps new_name and new_code to 'Name and/or Code'. It does not explain model_id, table_ref, or the semantics of dry_run or the default empty strings. This leaves the agent to infer parameter behavior, which is inadequate for a 5-parameter tool.

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 (rename), the resource (table), and the specific fields (Name and/or Code). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rename_column, which targets columns. It's specific and 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?

The description implies usage for renaming a table, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_table or rename_column. It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites. The dry_run note is a minor usage hint, but overall the tool lacks clear contextual routing.

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