set_table_description

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format ('JSON with status, table_name, description') and uses 'Set or update' to imply idempotent behavior. It does not mention permissions or error handling, but for a simple metadata update, this is sufficient. The example adds practical behavioral context.

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 concise and well-structured with clearly labeled Args, Returns, and Example sections. Every sentence adds value, and the example is practical. No unnecessary information or verbosity.

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 simplicity (2 string params, no enums, no nested objects), the description is complete. It explains parameters, return value, and provides an example. The presence of an output schema (though not shown) is supported by the return description, and the tool's behavioral scope is fully covered.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear explanations for both parameters: 'table_name: Name of the table to update' and 'description: New description for the table.' The example with values ('Image', 'Medical images for analysis') further clarifies usage. This fully compensates for the lack of schema documentation.

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's function: 'Set or update the description (comment) for a table.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and the 'for a table' qualifier distinguishes it from similar tools like set_column_description or set_dataset_description. The inclusion of an example reinforces the purpose.

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 clearly indicates it is for table descriptions, providing a clear context for use. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'for column descriptions use set_column_description'), so it misses the explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance. The context is clear enough that an agent can infer the appropriate use case.

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