Manage Schema

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description adds little behavioral context. It mentions 'batch' but does not detail the scope of changes, potential side effects (e.g., data loss on column deletion), or any permissions/auth requirements. The description is truncated and misses opportunity to elaborate on safety.

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 short and front-loads purpose, but it is truncated (ends with 'aut') and relies on external help (grist_help) for completeness, which undermines self-containment. Every sentence earns its place but the incomplete final sentence reduces clarity.

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 the complexity of batch schema operations and the lack of output schema or parameter descriptions, the description is insufficiently complete. The requirement to use grist_help for full schema highlights a gap. Important details like the structure of the 'operations' array, error handling, or transaction behavior are missing.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any parameters (docId, operations, response_format). The only parameter-related hint ('Ref columns need refTable') is vague and not linked to the schema. The description fails to add any meaning beyond the raw schema, leaving the agent to guess parameter semantics.

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 handles batch schema operations on tables, columns, and summary tables, with specific verbs like create/rename/delete and add/modify/remove. This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on documents, records, or pages, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 usage for schema modification and provides a constraint ('Ref columns need refTable'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or exclude certain contexts. The suggestion to use grist_help for full schema hints at complexity but doesn't guide the agent on conditional usage.

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