replace_table_csv

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

The description implies a destructive action ('replace') but does not detail what happens to the existing table data, whether the table structure is preserved, permissions required, or limits on CSV size. No annotations are present to fill this gap.

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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the key action. However, it could be expanded slightly to include crucial details without losing brevity.

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?

The description lacks critical context: how the CSV data is provided (file, content, etc.), what happens to the table schema, and any prerequisites. Without output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient for a destructive operation.

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?

The input schema has a description for 'table_id' (ID of the table to replace), and the tool description adds no further meaning. Since schema coverage is effectively 100% (despite context stating 0%), a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Replace'), the resource ('an existing table'), and the data format ('CSV data'), and distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'append_csv_to_table' which appends rather than replaces.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., append_csv_to_table), nor are any prerequisites or conditions mentioned. The agent is left to guess about proper usage.

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