add_column

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the action (adds a column), allowed column types, defaults, and return JSON, but does not mention side effects like table locking, failure when the column exists, or required permissions. This is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 well-organized: a one-sentence summary, a compact Args section with per-parameter details, a Returns line, and a concrete example. Every element earns its place, and the structure aids quick parsing.

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 six-parameter surface and absence of annotations, the description is mostly complete: it covers all parameters, defaults, return format, and an example. It does not mention preconditions (e.g., table must exist, column must not already exist) or failure behavior, which would make it fully complete.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: table_name, column_name, column_type with enumerated allowed values, nullok, default, and comment. It also provides an example showing argument order and keyword usage, making parameter meaning unambiguous.

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 first sentence, 'Add a new column to an existing table,' clearly states the tool's action and target. It does not explicitly mention sibling tools like add_visible_column, but the parameter list (column_type, nullok, default) makes the schema modification intent clear.

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 its use for adding a schema-level column to an existing table, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as create_table or add_visible_column. There is clear context but no exclusions or comparisons.

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