modify_connection_table_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly identifies the operation as write/destructive and provides specific behavioral details for NetSuite/Salesforce connectors (single-entry schema map). No contradictions.

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 a single sentence with an important warning front-loaded. It is concise and every part is relevant.

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 5 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides key context: write operation, user confirmation, and connector-specific behavior. It lacks details about response or side effects, but the schema descriptions cover the parameters adequately.

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% with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description adds value by explaining a special case (single-entry for certain connectors), but does not significantly augment parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 it updates the table config for an existing connection in Fivetran, using a specific verb ('updates') and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like modify_connection_schema_config by focusing on table-level config.

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?

Includes a strong warning '⚠️ WRITE OPERATION - Confirm with user before calling', which sets clear context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives.

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