group_keep_all_columns

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It details the mechanism (Table.Group with {each _}), the expansion process, schema-drift resilience, and the fact that it appends two M-query steps. It does not mention permissions or error conditions, but for a table-transformation tool, this is substantive disclosure.

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 composed of four sentences, each contributing key information: the core purpose, the implementation detail, the schema-drift benefit, and the key format plus side effect. While not ultra-terse, every sentence earns its place and the info is front-loaded with the main purpose. Slightly more could be trimmed, but overall it is well-structured.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete: it explains what the tool does, how it works, and what effect it has on the table. It doesn't cover edge cases or limitations, but the information provided should allow an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in typical scenarios.

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 input schema describes keys and partitionName but leaves table and sessionId undocumented. The description adds meaning by clarifying that 'keys is comma-separated' and that the tool 'appends two steps to the table's M query', which implies how the table parameter is used. This compensates for the 50% schema coverage, adding value beyond the 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 tool's purpose: 'Group By keeping ALL columns', which is a specific variant of group-by that retains all columns. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'group_by' by explicitly mentioning the workaround for the editor's Group By dropping non-aggregated columns, making its unique role unambiguous.

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 clear guidance on when to use this tool: as a workaround when the standard Group By would drop non-aggregated columns. It implies the alternative (standard group_by) and gives the specific use case. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention other alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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