tables_db_update_relationship_column

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Update' implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, side effects (e.g., impact on related data), or error conditions. The external link hints at missing details but doesn't compensate adequately.

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 core action ('Update relationship column'), which is efficient. However, the external link adds a sentence that doesn't enhance the description itself, slightly reducing self-containment. Overall, it's concise but could be more self-contained.

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?

Given the complexity of updating a database relationship column (a mutation with 5 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, usage context, and output, relying on an external link that may not be accessible to the agent. This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective tool invocation.

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%, with all parameters documented in the schema (e.g., 'database_id', 'key', 'on_delete'). The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining 'on_delete' constraints or the relationship between 'key' and 'new_key'. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema 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 states the verb ('Update') and resource ('relationship column'), which is clear but vague. It doesn't specify what aspects of a relationship column are updated (e.g., constraints, key) or differentiate from sibling tools like 'tables_db_update_boolean_column' beyond the column type. The link to external documentation suggests incomplete self-containment.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., existing relationship column), exclusions, or compare with tools like 'tables_db_create_relationship_column' or 'tables_db_delete_column'. The agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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