Save Table Terms

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: it discloses that previous Terms for the table are replaced with Terms carrying SQL attributes preserved, that new Terms are created as draft, that editing a certified Term's meaning reverts it to draft, and that unassigned candidate columns auto-attach to the first Term. One mild tension exists: annotations declare destructiveHint=false while the description says prior Terms are replaced — worth noting, though the replacement is scoped and partially exempted, so it is disclosed rather than contradicted.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then replacement semantics and state transitions. No filler; a reader gets purpose and side effects in one pass.

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 tool with rich annotations, a fully documented nested schema and an output schema, the description covers the key side effects an agent must know before writing. The main gap is workflow placement — which sibling to run before this and what to use for corrections.

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 the schema already defines table, terms, datasource, is_junction and column_descriptions in detail. The description adds only one extra semantic — that leftover candidate columns land on the first Term — which is useful but marginal against a fully documented 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 and resource: save Terms for one table and map its columns to them. This distinguishes it reasonably from update_term (single existing Term) and save_glossary (whole glossary), though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 implies the context (proposing Terms for a table) but never says when to call this instead of update_term or save_sql_attribute, nor what preconditions exist (e.g. after describe_table/scan_datasource). Usage is inferable, not spelled out.

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