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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It discloses that the tool is a deprecated shim that dispatches to other tools, which is the key behavioral trait. It does not detail operation-specific side effects, but for a deprecated tool the most important fact is clearly stated.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with DEPRECATED, and wastes no words. It immediately directs the agent to the correct tools.

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 deprecated, the description plus schema is sufficient to guide the agent away from it and toward the named alternatives. However, if an agent were forced to call this shim, the description would not explain operation behavior or parameter semantics, so it is not fully complete.

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 description provides no explanation of the seven parameters (operation, table_id, schema, patches, name, table_type, max_results). Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to compensate and did not.

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 identifies the tool as a deprecated backward-compatibility shim and explicitly names the five replacement tools it dispatches to. This makes its purpose unmistakable and differentiates it from the single-verb sibling 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?

It gives explicit when-not-to-use guidance by saying DEPRECATED and listing the exact alternatives (list/get/create/delete/update table). This is model usage guidance for selecting the right tool.

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