edit_schema

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It simply says 'change name and/or description' with no mention of side effects, reversibility, permissions, or impact on other schema components. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args block is well-structured and not overly verbose. Each sentence earns its place, though the parameter descriptions are somewhat redundant with 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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are handled. The description covers the purpose and parameters, but lacks usage context and behavioral side effects. For a simple metadata update, it is adequate but not fully complete due to the missing guidelines and transparency.

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 Args block provides Russian descriptions for all parameters, adding meaning beyond the bare schema names. It clarifies that schema_name is the new name and schema_description is optional, which is valuable. However, it largely restates the parameter names with minimal elaboration.

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 ('Изменить' = change/update) and the target resource (схема = schema), specifying the exact scope: 'название и/или описание' (name and/or description). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_schema, delete_schema, and commit_schema.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing schema, nor does it clarify that this tool only updates metadata without affecting structural elements like tables or relationships. Usage is only implicitly understood from the function name.

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