replace_errors

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 does disclose the side effect of appending Table.ReplaceErrorValues to the M query and notes the all-columns replacement limitation, but it does not mention permissions, reversibility, or what is returned after the operation.

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 three dense sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and free of redundant filler. Every sentence contributes useful information, including the M query side effect, parameter format, and valueType semantics.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description covers the transformation semantics well but omits return value/confirmation behavior, prerequisites, and how this tool differs from remove_errors or replace_values. It is adequate for a straightforward M operation but not fully complete for a mutation tool.

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 coverage is 60%, and the description adds meaningful value by providing a concrete example ('Amount:0,Region:Unknown'), clarifying that valueType applies to all replacement values, and explaining the all-columns replacement caveat. It does not explain sessionId/table/partitionName, but the core transformation parameters are well covered.

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 'substitute a value for error cells in specific columns' and names the exact M function Table.ReplaceErrorValues, giving a specific verb, resource, and scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_errors, replace_values, or replace_value.

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 operation context and parameter syntax but does not explicitly explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like remove_errors or replace_values. It implies usage through the substitution semantics, but lacks exclusion notes or if/then guidance.

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