set_table_ols

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that permission can be None, Read, or Default, and that the permission record is created if absent. However, it does not explicitly state whether existing permissions are overwritten, nor does it mention authorization requirements or effects on related settings. Some important behavioral gaps remain.

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 tightly written sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. Every clause adds meaningful information, making it highly efficient.

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?

The description sufficiently covers the essential aspects for invocation: role, table, permission semantics, and creation behavior. It does not describe return values, but no output schema exists, so that is acceptable. Minor gaps (e.g., update behavior if permission exists, error handling) prevent a 5, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to select and use correctly.

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 75%, so description partially compensates. The permission parameter's values are explained in detail ('None (table hidden + inaccessible)', 'Read (visible)', 'Default (inherit)'), adding semantic meaning beyond the schema's simple list. The 'table' parameter is clarified as 'whole table'. Role and sessionId remain straightforward, but the description adds value.

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 function: setting table-level object security for a role. It explicitly mentions 'whole table' to distinguish from column-level security (set_column_ols sibling), and defines the permission values. The verb 'set' and resource 'table' are specific and 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 context on when to use the tool (table-level OLS) and explains the permission options. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, although 'whole table' implicitly contrasts with column-level security. A direct mention of when not to use (e.g., for column-level) would have earned a 5.

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