modify_dataset_sql

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true, so the description adds real value: it discloses the read-modify-update mechanism and, crucially, that a backup is created automatically, which materially softens the destructive risk. It stops short of stating permissions or how the replacement handles multiple matches.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then mechanism, then the backup caveat. Slight redundancy between the first two sentences ('find and replace text' vs 'applies a string replacement'), but no wasted padding.

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?

With an output schema present, a single destructive annotation, and full param coverage, the description supplies the missing behavioral context (auto-backup) and is sufficient for correct invocation. Only the sibling-routing detail is absent.

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 100%, so find, replace, and dataset_id are already fully documented. The description confirms the replacement semantics ('applies a string replacement') but adds no format, matching, or case-sensitivity detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 holds.

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?

States a specific verb+resource pair (find and replace text in a dataset's SQL query) and clarifies it is a convenience wrapper over read-modify-update. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling update_dataset_sql or get_dataset_sql, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

Calling it a 'convenience tool' implies it is for narrow string substitutions rather than full SQL rewrites, which is useful implied guidance. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement naming update_dataset_sql as the alternative for larger edits.

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