Update Lookup Table

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: active versions are immutable, changes create a new version seeded with existing entries, rules continue using the active version until activation, and removal of missing keys is reported in `not_found`. This is exactly the kind of consequence disclosure a destructive, non-idempotent mutation needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the mutation surface, then versioning semantics, then per-parameter behavior; every paragraph carries information. Slightly long, but no sentence is filler.

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 an 11-parameter destructive mutation with an output schema present, the description supplies the versioning model, activation path, and entry-operation semantics an agent needs to call it correctly without guessing about side effects.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns more by clarifying the interaction rules between the entry parameters — set_entries adds/overwrites, remove_keys deletes and reports misses, replace_entries replaces everything, and the three are mutually exclusive. It does not elaborate on wait_seconds or the folder edge case, which the schema already covers.

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?

States a specific verb (change/update) and the exact resources affected: entries, column labels, name and description of a lookup table. It is distinguishable from get_lookup_table and create_lookup_table, but it never names the closest sibling (activate_lookup_table) even though it replicates part of its behavior via the `activate` flag.

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?

Explains when entry changes land on the draft version versus starting a new version from the active one, and tells the agent to pass `activate` to publish in the same call rather than making a separate activation request. No explicit when-not guidance or naming of alternative tools.

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