Update Table Column Widths

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds real value by disclosing that the operation replaces all widths while preserving rows and cell content. That tells an agent what is and isn't affected by the write, which annotations alone do not.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core effect front-loaded and the null special case second. Nothing is repeated or wasted.

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?

With an output schema, full annotation coverage and 100% schema descriptions, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. It stops short of mentioning the optimistic-concurrency path (expectedRevision), but that is already fully specified in the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so docId, blockId, widths, workspaceId and expectedRevision are all documented inline, including the null-restores-automatic behavior. The description only reinforces the null semantics and the whole-array nature, adding little beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 (Set) and resource (every column width in an AFFiNE table), which clearly separates it from update_table_cell and update_block. It never names a sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 'Pass null to restore AFFiNE's automatic width' sentence implies when to use null values, but there is no guidance on when to pick this tool over update_table_cell or update_block, and no preconditions or exclusions are given.

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