set_table_display_name

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 effect (sets UI display name), the return format (JSON with status, table_name, display_name), and provides an example. It does not mention error conditions or side effects, but for a simple setter this is still fairly transparent.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, then provides a usage note, args, returns, and example. Each sentence earns its place and there is no wasted text.

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?

The description is complete for this simple tool: both parameters are explained, the return value is described, an example is given, and the alternative for broader functionality is referenced. There are no significant gaps.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains table_name as 'Name of the table to update' and display_name as 'Human-readable name to display in the UI', and the example further clarifies usage. This fully covers both parameters.

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 that the tool sets the display name shown in the UI for a table. It distinguishes itself from the sibling set_display_annotation by noting it is a convenience tool for setting just the display name, which clarifies its specific scope.

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 explicitly says to use set_display_annotation when setting multiple display properties (name, markdown_name, etc.), and implies this tool is for single-property updates. This gives clear context on when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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