update_column

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the partial-update behavior ('Only supplied values are changed') and the dry_run capability, which are important behavioral traits not visible in the schema. It does not mention whether the operation is reversible, whether it requires a transaction, or what the return value is, but the core mutation semantics are clear.

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?

Three sentences, no filler. The property list is front-loaded, the partial-update semantics follow, and the dry_run note is last. Every sentence 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?

For a 14-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics: what can be updated, that it's a partial update, and that dry_run is supported. It does not explain the return value or whether changes are transactional, but the required identifiers are self-evident from the schema and the property list is exhaustive. Slightly more context about the effect of setting primary or domain would help, but the description is largely complete 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all 11 updatable properties by name, which maps directly to the schema properties and adds meaning by indicating which parameters are the actual update targets versus the required identifiers (model_id, table_ref, column_ref). It also clarifies that dry_run is a special mode rather than a column property. This is strong compensation for the 0% coverage.

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 specific verb ('Update') and resource ('column properties'), and enumerates the exact properties that can be changed. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like rename_column (which only renames) and delete_column (which removes). The scope 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?

The description implies usage context: use this when you need to modify one or more column properties, and the 'Only supplied values are changed' note clarifies partial-update semantics. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the sibling list and property list make the intended use clear. A small gap: no guidance on when to prefer rename_column or update_table instead.

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