Remove Table Column

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

Annotations already flag destructive=true, but the description goes further by disclosing propagation (the delete ships wherever the update set is committed), the hard refusal gates, and the acknowledgement paths required to bypass them — information no structured field carries.

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, front-loaded with the action and the update-set consequence before the refusal gates. Dense but nearly every clause carries distinct information; the parenthetical about the dictionary record is the only slightly costly aside.

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 10-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, it covers the risky parts well: why it can be refused, what acknowledgement unlocks which refusal, and where the deletion propagates. It says nothing about what a successful call returns or how to verify the removal.

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 every one of the 10 parameters is already documented, including confirm, update_set and the three acknowledge_* flags. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Remove a column from a table") and pins down the platform mechanic ("the platform's Delete on its dictionary record"), which separates it from add_table_column and generic metadata tools in the sibling list.

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 explicit preconditions and refusal conditions: blocked while rows hold values or while client scripts/UI policy actions reference the column, unless acknowledged. It also states the update-set requirement. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative (e.g. add_table_column, delete_metadata_record) for adjacent cases.

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