update_table

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals only that the tool mutates table properties and mentions dry_run, but does not explain what dry_run does, what side effects occur, what permissions are needed, or what the response looks like.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler: the operation is named first, the key properties are listed, and the dry_run capability is appended. Every part earns its place, and the structure is as efficient as possible for the information it provides.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions, this description is incomplete. It omits required identifier semantics, dry_run behavior, side effects, and relationship to sibling tools. It provides only the basic action and a hint at one optional behavior.

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 names three property parameters (name, code, comment) and mentions dry_run, but it leaves the required parameters model_id and table_ref unexplained, and does not clarify the meaning or effect of dry_run beyond its 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Update table properties') and lists the affected fields (name, code, comment), making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling rename_table, which is a closely related tool, so it falls short of fully distinguishing itself.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use update_table versus related siblings such as rename_table or update_column. There are no stated conditions, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage context on its own.

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