edit_table

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'изменить свойства' without mentioning that this is a mutating operation on a branch, whether changes require a commit, or any side effects. The branch_name parameter is listed but its behavioral significance is not explained.

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 brief and front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args list is concise, though it partially 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?

The tool is a mutation on a schema branch, but the description does not explain the branching context or the need to commit after editing. While an output schema exists, the behavioral context of editing (e.g., that it modifies the working version) is missing.

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 section provides basic descriptions for each parameter (e.g., table_color: 'Новый цвет в HEX'), which helps understand the parameters. However, given 0% schema coverage, the descriptions are minimal and do not clarify optionality, constraints, or interactions between parameters (e.g., whether position_x/y must be provided together).

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 action: 'Изменить свойства таблицы' (edit table properties) and lists the editable properties (name, position on canvas, color). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_table or batch_edit_tables.

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 like batch_edit_tables or edit_schema. The context implies it is for editing a single table, but no exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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