update_attribute

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the crucial constraint that Dataverse fixes type and logical name, and that changing them requires migration via other tools. However, it does not mention other behavioral aspects such as required permissions, immediate effect on data validation, or potential irreversibility beyond type/name (some details exist in the schema for date_behavior but 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 two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose and scope; the second sentence front-loads a critical constraint and the alternative workflow. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is highly scannable.

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 14-parameter metadata mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what can be updated, what cannot be updated, and the recommended alternative for immutable properties. It doesn't explicitly mention permissions or system-level side effects, but the schema covers parameter-specific semantics. Slightly more could be said about operational impact, hence not a 5.

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 baseline is 3. The description reiterates which parameters are updatable but adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond the schema's already detailed per-field descriptions. It does clarify the role of 'type' as an immutable constraint, but that is also captured in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb 'Update' with resource 'metadata of an existing column' and explicitly lists what can be updated (display name, description, required level, max length, min/max value, precision). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by stating that type and logical name are fixed, guiding users to add_attribute/delete_attribute instead.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: for metadata updates use this tool; for type/logical name changes it prescribes the exact alternative workflow (add_attribute → update_record → delete_attribute). It also references add_attribute for date_format semantics, reinforcing the routing.

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