modifyTables

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It explains operational details (e.g., dropping every PK column requires explicit DROP). However, it does not mention whether the operation is transactional, whether changes are immediately persisted, or any permission requirements. Some behavioral traits are left implicit.

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 verbose and lists all operation types, making it thorough but not concise. It is front-loaded with the main action, but subsequent sentences are dense. It could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (many operation types) and that the input schema covers all parameters, the description covers the main use cases and edge cases (e.g., empty comments, PK drops). Missing details like error handling or atomicity are minor gaps, but overall it is mostly 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. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the purpose of each operation group and providing usage nuance (e.g., when to set modify flag, how to handle PK drops). This elevates the score above baseline.

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 tool modifies existing tables and enumerates all supported operation types (rename, comments, PK, columns, indexes, foreign keys, constraints). It distinguishes from sibling tools like createTables (creates new tables) and getTableDetails (reads table info).

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?

The description provides specific usage patterns, such as using remarksOperation.modify=true to intentionally set an empty comment, and that omitting primaryKeyOperations or passing [] means no change. It also mentions that multiple alterations can be batched and notes context defaults, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance vs. alternatives.

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