check_table_access

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

With readOnlyHint=true already declared, the description goes further by explaining exactly how access is probed (sysparm_limit=1 GET for reads; empty PATCH to a reserved all-zero sys_id for writes, with 404=writable/403=denied) and explicitly guarantees 'no record is ever created or modified'. This resolves the apparent tension between a PATCH and a readOnly annotation rather than contradicting it.

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 critical guidance ('BEFORE attempting operations', the status vocabulary, the non-destructive guarantee) is front-loaded. It runs a bit long with the parenthetical status enumeration, but every clause carries actionable information rather than 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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates fully by enumerating the return fields (per-table readable/writable flags, status values with their meanings, current user and roles). For a two-parameter diagnostic tool with annotations, nothing an agent needs before calling is missing.

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, but the description adds real meaning by explaining the mechanism behind check_write (non-destructive empty PATCH) and what its outcome signifies. The 'tables' parameter's max-20 cap is left to the schema, which documents it adequately.

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 ('Diagnose the connected service account's effective access to one or more tables') and immediately contrasts with operational siblings by saying it runs BEFORE attempting operations. An agent can distinguish this from describe_table, query_records, or get_record without inspecting any schema.

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?

Explicitly frames the when: 'BEFORE attempting operations' and names two concrete use cases (verifying a plugin is installed, avoiding 'User Not Authorized' retries). It stops short of naming the alternative tools to call after a successful check, so it is strong context rather than a full routing rule.

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