workiva_update_table_properties

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 mentions 'via JSON Patch' which hints at partial updates, but it does not disclose permissions, reversibility, what happens on invalid patches, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 concise and front-loaded, with a clear 'Args' block that separates parameters. Every word contributes, but the brevity borders on under-specification, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 complexity of a mutation tool with JSON Patch and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not explain return behavior, error conditions, or relationship to sibling update tools. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe returns, but the description still leaves too many operational questions unanswered.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by specifying that table_id is a 'table UUID' and that patches is a 'JSON Patch array', which goes beyond the bare schema. However, it omits the structure of JSON Patch operations and the meaning of the nullable patches field, so the compensation is incomplete.

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 it updates table properties via JSON Patch, identifying both the action and the resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like workiva_edit_table_structure or workiva_wdata_update_table, so it lacks explicit differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, ideal use cases, or why one would choose JSON Patch over other update mechanisms, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name.

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