model_update_table

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only says 'Replace' which hints at mutation. It does not specify whether the operation is destructive (overwrites entire table), requires existing table, or has side effects like removing unspecified columns or measures.

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 very brief (one sentence), which is concise but too short to provide necessary information. It is not front-loaded effectively; it lacks structured details that would help the agent.

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 tool's complexity (3 parameters, nested object, no output schema, no annotations), the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain return values, error behavior, or how the replacement works, making it inadequate for correct selection and invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to parameters. The agent must infer all semantics from property names alone, with no explanation of projectPath, dryRun, or the complex table object structure.

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 action ('Replace an existing TMDL table definition') and distinguishes from sibling tools like model_add_table and model_delete_table. However, it is somewhat generic and does not explicitly mention that the operation is within a project context, though projectPath parameter implies it.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., table must exist), and no mention of the dryRun parameter's purpose for previewing changes.

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