edit_column

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

There are no annotations, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions required, or impact on data. It only lists inputs, leaving the agent unaware of consequences.

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 compact docstring with a one-line purpose followed by an Args list. It is structured and not overly verbose, though the parameter list largely duplicates the schema.

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 complex mutation tool with no annotations, the description omits important contextual information such as whether changes are branch-local, whether at least one property is required, and what the output indicates. The presence of an output schema doesn't excuse the lack of usage context.

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 description provides Russian glosses for each parameter (e.g., 'column_name: Новое название колонки'), but most are direct translations of the schema field names. It adds some semantic value by marking fields as 'new' and noting the branch_name default, but does not fully compensate for the 0% schema description 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 opens with 'Изменить свойства колонки' (Change column properties), clearly indicating a mutation on a column. It lists the affected fields, distinguishing it from create/delete operations, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like edit_table.

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 when-to-use guidance is provided. The description only states what the tool does and lists parameters, without mentioning alternatives, prerequisites, or typical scenarios.

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