update_table

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'update', which implies mutation, but does not specify whether it is a patch or full replacement, required permissions, side effects, or if the operation is atomic. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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, which is concise but at the expense of clarity. It is not overly long, but it fails to earn its place because it omits critical information, making it merely adequate but not efficient in conveying utility.

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 no output schema, two complex parameters (one being an array of objects), and no annotations, the description is vastly incomplete. It does not describe return values, error handling, or the nature of operations. For an update tool, much more context is needed.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain the parameters. 'table_id' and 'operations' are listed in the schema but their purpose and format are entirely unspecified. The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 'Update an existing table in OpenMetadata', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_table and delete_table. However, it lacks details on what exactly can be updated (e.g., name, schema, tags), preventing a top score.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_table, get_table, or update_* for other entities. No mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or related tools. The minimal description leaves the agent without context for decision-making.

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