add_attribute

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Add' without revealing mutation side effects, irreversibility, solution/publishing requirements, or failure conditions. Notable behavioral constraints like the one-way date_behavior change are hidden in the schema, not in the description.

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 or redundant restatements. Every word earns its place, and the core action and target are clear immediately.

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 nested attribute schema captures most configuration semantics, making the tool relatively self-contained. However, the description omits any context about prerequisites (e.g., table existence), publishing/deployment behavior, or what happens after the operation. With no output schema and no annotations, those gaps make the description only minimally complete.

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 description itself provides no parameter-level meaning, but the input schema includes descriptions for all visible properties, including nuanced semantics like mutual exclusivity of options and global_option_set, plus DateTime behavioral details. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the description adds only marginal value here.

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 a specific verb ('Add'), a specific resource ('a column/attribute'), and a target context ('an existing Dataverse table'). This distinguishes it from create_entity (creating tables) and create_relationship, and the sibling list confirms the category of attribute tools.

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 implies the tool is for adding attributes to an existing table, which is enough to infer the basic use case. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over update_attribute or other alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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