schema

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains each action's effect (list returns schema, add creates property, remove deletes, rename renames) and notes the return for list. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., irreversible removal, permission requirements, or error conditions). For a schema-modification tool, the described behavior is transparent enough, but missing edge-case details keep it from a 5.

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 front-loaded with the purpose in the first sentence, then organizes actions under clear headers with code examples. Every section earns its place: actions, supported types, and option guidance. It is comprehensive without being redundant, striking an ideal balance between detail and brevity.

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 tool with 6 parameters, 4 actions, and no output schema, the description is highly complete. It covers all actions with examples, lists valid types, and explains parameter roles. It does not explicitly address error scenarios or prerequisites, but the scope is well-defined and the examples cover typical use cases. Nothing essential for calling the tool correctly 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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema. It provides concrete usage examples for each action (e.g., how to pass property, type, options, name), enumerates supported types for 'add', and clarifies the default action. This goes well beyond the schema's dry descriptions, making parameter usage intuitive and error-free.

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 clear verb+resource: 'View or modify database schema (columns/properties).' It enumerates four distinct actions (list/add/remove/rename) with concrete examples, making it unambiguous what the tool does and distinguishing it from generic sibling tools like write/update/delete. The purpose is fully articulated.

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 clearly defines the actions and their semantics, providing examples for each. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with sibling tools or state when not to use it (e.g., for data operations vs. schema changes). The guidance is implicit through the tool's specific scope, but an explicit alternative route would elevate it.

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