modify_table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the operation but does not disclose important behavioral traits such as conflict handling (e.g., if new_table_id already exists), side effects on data, or authorization requirements.

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 short and structured with clear sections for prerequisites, arguments, and returns. It avoids unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more condensed.

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 tool modifies a table with simple parameters and an output schema exists. The description provides a high-level overview but lacks details on potential errors, idempotency, or what happens on success/failure.

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 briefly explains the three parameters (doc_id, table_id, new_table_id) but lacks detail on formats, constraints, or specific requirements, providing only basic semantics.

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 it modifies table properties, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like modify_column, and does not specify which properties beyond renaming.

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 lists a prerequisite (use list_tables to get a valid table_id) which is helpful. It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or provide alternatives, so usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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