Update Table

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the field scope: it does not say whether omitted fields are left untouched vs cleared, whether the operation is reversible, or what permissions are needed. With a mutation tool and a destructive annotation, a bare rename sentence leaves real gaps.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler and the scope front-loaded. It is efficient, though it is arguably too terse to carry the behavioral burden this mutation tool needs.

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?

For a simple rename/describe operation with fully documented params and an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It falls short of what a destructiveHint mutation tool should convey about side effects and reversibility.

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 100%, so all four parameters are documented in the schema itself; the description only echoes name/description. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds no format or constraint detail.

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?

States a specific verb (update) and resource (table) plus the two mutable fields (name, description). It is clear what it does, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings like update_field or update_records, and gives no cue that this is per-table metadata rather than table contents.

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 when-to-use framing, no prerequisites (baseId/tableId are required), and no mention of alternatives such as delete_records or create_table for other table lifecycle operations. The agent must infer context entirely.

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