lakehouse_update

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

The annotations already indicate this is a mutating but non-destructive operation, so the description does not need to restate that. However, it adds no further behavioral context such as whether both fields are optional, whether an empty update is valid, or how missing fields are treated.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.

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?

For a simple metadata-update tool with fully documented parameters and clear annotations, the description is mostly adequate. However, it omits clarification about whether at least one of displayName or description must be provided, and it does not distinguish itself from the sibling lakehouse_update_definition.

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 the parameters are already well documented. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond identifying 'name' and 'description' as the updatable fields, which the schema already conveys.

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 states the specific verb 'update' with the resource 'lakehouse' and the exact field scope ('name or description'), which makes the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly cross-reference the sibling lakehouse_update_definition, but the mention of name/description helps differentiate from a full definition update.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling lakehouse and update_definition tools. It does not state when this should be preferred or what alternatives exist for updating other lakehouse properties.

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