set_table_private

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully explains the core effect (hidden from all clients, stronger than hide) but omits details about permissions, reversibility, or any side effects on existing connections. This is adequate for a simple setter but not fully transparent.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and key distinction. No wasted words; every clause adds value. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool's simplicity (3 scalar params, no output schema), the description covers purpose and usage context well. However, the lack of parameter explanation for sessionId and the absence of any behavioral notes beyond the flag itself prevent a perfect score. It is nearly complete but could be more thorough.

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 only 33% (only isPrivate has description). The tool description does not compensate for the undocumented table and sessionId parameters. The name implies the table target, but sessionId is unexplained, and no parameter-specific guidance is provided beyond the isPrivate description in 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 function: setting the Table.IsPrivate property. It distinguishes this from merely 'hide' by explaining that private is stronger and hidden from ALL clients, making its purpose unambiguous and differentiating it from sibling tools like set_table_visibility.

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 usage context: it is the right setting for internal helper/staging tables. It implicitly contrasts with 'hide' but does not explicitly name an alternative tool, leaving some room for interpretation. However, the context is sufficient for an AI agent to understand when to use it.

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