modify_connection_database_schema_config

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

The description discloses that it is a write operation with a warning, mentions the response contains all known schemas/tables and user-set columns, and notes special behavior for NetSuite and Salesforce connectors. With no annotations provided, it covers key behavioral aspects, though it could include more on side effects or authorization.

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 starts with a clear warning and explains the operation, but includes multiple clauses and references to tutorials. It is well front-loaded but could be more concise, as it mixes usage notes, response details, and connector specifics in one paragraph.

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 write operation with no output schema, the description explains the response content, connector-specific behaviors, and references documentation. It covers important contextual details, though it omits prerequisites like connection existence and error scenarios. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the description adds limited parameter-specific meaning. The overall context of updating a single schema relates to the schema_name parameter, but the description does not elaborate beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 is a write operation that updates the database schema config for an existing connection, specifically for a single schema in a multi-schema connection. It uses a specific verb 'updates' and resource 'database schema config', and distinguishes from siblings like modify_connection_schema_config by focusing on a single schema.

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 context that this is for updating a schema within a connection with multiple schemas, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternative tools like modify_connection_schema_config. It includes a warning to confirm with the user, but lacks clear when/not-to-use guidance.

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