workiva_wdata_update_table

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions JSON Patch, implying partial mutation, but does not explain side effects, required permissions, reversible changes, failure behavior, or what the update actually modifies.

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 very short and to the point, with no redundant fluff. The 'Args:' block is a clear structure, though the overall density is low, making it less rich than ideal.

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 tool is a mutation with two parameters, no annotations, and an output schema not described. The description is inadequate: it does not specify what fields can be patched, how JSON Patch is applied, or what the response contains. This is far from complete for an agent needing to use it 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?

The description adds basic meaning to both parameters (table_id and patches) that the schema lacks, since schema descriptions are absent. However, it only provides terse definitions without deeper format details or examples, so it only partially compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 updates a Wdata table using JSON Patch, specifying both the action and the method. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like workiva_wdata_create_table or workiva_get_table.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or references to other update-related tools (e.g., workiva_update_table_properties).

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