Update Table Column (raw)

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important non-obvious behavior: an edit relocating the table changes its location-derived id and the response returns currentTableId plus previousTableId; the studio does not auto-compile and the tool reads the table back to trigger recompile. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs, and it does not contradict the annotations.

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 relatively long but every section earns its place: operation, positioning, raw-source scope, id volatility, and recompile behavior. It is front-loaded with the core action. There is minor redundancy with the schema for 0-based positioning, but the extra context is valuable enough to justify the length.

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 complex table mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical operational details: position bounds, header/label conventions, no resize, raw source behavior, id relocation, response tableId semantics, and recompile triggering. It does not describe the full response shape beyond the id, but the schema and response_format parameter cover the important remaining usage details.

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 already 100%, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description adds value by clarifying positional semantics not fully captured in the schema: 'row 0 is the header row, column 0 carries the leading labels' and that cells are written 'top to bottom.' This helps an agent construct the cells array correctly.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Overwrite the cells of an existing column at position (0..width-1)... top to bottom.' It also clarifies the scope ('the table is not resized', 'works for any table type'), making it clearly distinguishable from sibling table tools like openl_update_table_cell or openl_update_table_range even though no sibling is named.

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 implies usage context: it updates an existing column, is not for resizing, and works on the RAW source for any table type. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over siblings such as openl_update_table_row, openl_update_table_cell, or openl_append_table_columns, and no alternatives or exclusions are named.

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