rename_table

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

Despite no annotations, the description explains the mechanism (sp_rename, in-place, no SQL injection) and scope constraints. This sufficiently informs an agent about the tool's behavior, though it could mention permission requirements or reversibility.

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 main purpose, followed by technical details and clear parameter descriptions. Every sentence is informative and concise, with no wasted words.

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 purpose, constraints, and parameters thoroughly. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. Could mention error behavior (e.g., table not found) but is otherwise complete for a mutation tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter in detail (workspace/item rejection of SQL Analytics Endpoints, qualified_name as dot-separated, new_name as unqualified without dot). Adds significant value beyond the bare 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?

Clearly states 'Rename a SQL table via sp_rename (Data-Warehouse-only)'. Specific verb+resource with important scoping, distinguishing it from other rename tools that operate on different resources or in different contexts.

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 constraints: data-warehouse-only, new_name must be unqualified, SQL Analytics Endpoints rejected. However, does not explicitly list alternatives or say when not to use this tool.

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