Add Table Column

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, open-world), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the column name gets a platform prefix when missing (u_ in Global, <scope>_ elsewhere), and the call also captures and verifies Field Label and form layout as side effects. That side effect is exactly the kind of thing an agent would not learn from the schema. It doesn't mention failure modes or what happens when verification fails, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, the update-set constraint, and name prefixing. The purpose is front-loaded and nothing is repeated from the annotations or schema descriptions.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the two things an agent could get wrong: the update set state and the column naming. Remaining gaps (type-specific options, scope vs scope_id, the Store-app acknowledgement flag) are fully documented in the schema, so this is close to 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond it: the prefix behavior explains how the 'column' value is normalized, and the working-set constraint on 'update_set' is stricter context than the schema's own wording. The type, reference, max_length, and acknowledge_upgrade_skip parameters are left entirely to 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add a column to a table') and anchors it in a concrete UI analogue ('as the Columns related list does'), which tells an agent exactly what end state to expect. It is plainly distinguishable from the sibling remove_table_column and from generic metadata tools like update_metadata_record.

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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite for use: the update set must be the working set, named via set_current_update_set, and explains why (schema changes are captured only into the current set). It stops short of naming alternatives such as insert_metadata_record for sys_dictionary rows, so an agent must infer that this is the purpose-built path.

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