Update Table Column (raw)

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

Discloses key behaviors beyond annotations: table not resized, operates on RAW source, id can change on relocation, and recompile trigger by reading table back. Annotations are sparse (openWorldHint, idempotentHint), so description carries burden well. No contradiction between description and annotations.

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?

Single paragraph, front-loaded with main action, then constraints, then important behavioral details. Every sentence adds unique value without redundancy. Highly efficient and well-organized.

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?

Covers major aspects: action, constraints, id changes, recompile behavior. Missing details on response structure beyond tableId, but acceptable given no output schema. For a mutation tool with volatile id, it provides sufficient context for safe invocation.

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 covers 100% of parameters. Description adds value by explaining position's 0-indexing including header and leading labels, cells array usage (one per row), and tableId volatility. Provides context beyond schema descriptions, justifying a score above baseline 3.

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?

Clearly states the tool overwrites cells of an existing column at a given position in a table's raw source. Specifies the action (overwrite), resource (column), and scope (top to bottom, not resized). Distinguishes from sibling tools like openl_update_table_cell and openl_update_table_row by focusing on column operations and mentioning RAW source applicability.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use: to overwrite an entire column. Implicitly distinguishes from alternatives by not mentioning row/cell operations. States the table is not resized, hinting at other tools for insertion. However, does not explicitly name alternative tools or list scenarios when not to use.

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