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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It does disclose that the tool is a shim that dispatches to other tools, which is useful, but it does not mention side effects, permissions, required scopes, or error behavior. Since the actual behavior is delegated to the named tools, some transparency is gained, but the description remains thin.

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 extremely concise: front-loaded with 'DEPRECATED', then lists alternatives and states its shim role. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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 that the tool is a deprecated shim, the description adequately redirects users. The output schema likely covers return values, and the alternative tools provide implementation details. However, for an agent that must actually invoke this tool, the lack of parameter semantics and behavior details makes the description incomplete. It is sufficient for guidance, but not for safe invocation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any of the parameters (table_id, operation, patches). The meaning of 'operation' defaulting to 'get' and the structure of 'patches' are left entirely to the schema, which provides only names and types. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 that this tool is a deprecated backward-compatibility shim that dispatches to single-verb tools, and it lists those tools explicitly. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools and clarifies its role, though it does not directly state a specific action (e.g., 'get/update table properties') until the alternative tools are referenced.

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 explicitly says 'DEPRECATED — use workiva_get_table_properties / workiva_update_table_properties / ...' and explains that it is kept for backward compatibility. This gives clear guidance to prefer the alternative tools and only use this one for legacy compatibility.

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