set_column_ols

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the meaning of each permission value: None (hidden + inaccessible), Read (visible), and Default (inherit). This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it does not describe side effects, reversibility, or what 'inherit' refers to, keeping it short of 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's category ('Object-level security'), and no filler. Each clause adds distinct information: the action, the permission values, and their meanings. Excellent conciseness.

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 simple setter with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavior and permission semantics. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly. Minor gap: it doesn't explain what 'Default' inherits from (e.g., table-level default), but given the tool's simplicity, this is acceptable.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the permission parameter's semantics (None/Read/Default), which the schema only lists as strings. It does not add much for role, table, or column, but the permission clarification lifts the score.

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: 'Object-level security: set whether a role can SEE a column.' It identifies a specific verb (set), resource (column), and the security context (object-level), which distinguishes it from table-level security or generic column visibility tools.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. It does not mention alternatives like set_table_ols or set_column_visibility, nor does it explain prerequisites such as existing roles or table/column existence. The only implicit usage signal is the phrase 'Object-level security,' which is not enough.

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