tables_db_update_boolean_column

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds one important constraint about default values not affecting existing rows, which is valuable. However, it doesn't address critical behavioral aspects like whether this is a mutating operation (implied but not stated), permission requirements, error conditions, or what happens when renaming columns via 'new_key'. For a tool that modifies database schema with 6 parameters, 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 extremely concise with just two sentences that each serve a clear purpose. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second adds a critical behavioral constraint. There's zero wasted language or redundancy, making it efficiently front-loaded with essential information.

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 schema modification tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks information about what the tool returns, error conditions, permission requirements, side effects of column renaming, or how it differs from general update operations. The single behavioral note about default values doesn't compensate for these significant gaps in a potentially destructive operation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it only clarifies the behavioral implication of the 'default' parameter. No additional parameter semantics, constraints, or relationships are explained in the description beyond what's in the structured schema.

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 ('Update a boolean column') and specifies the resource type ('boolean column'), which distinguishes it from other column types in the sibling tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update operations like 'tables_db_update' or 'tables_db_update_row', leaving some ambiguity about when to use this specific tool versus general updates.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools including general 'tables_db_update' and other column-specific updates, there's no indication of prerequisites, constraints, or comparative context. The single behavioral note about default values doesn't address usage scenarios.

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