glue_data

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It implies job generation but does not disclose side effects, resource provisioning, permissions, idempotency, or failure behavior. The deprecation warning adds some context, but the safety and mutation profile of the operation remains unclear.

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 moderately long but well-structured with mode headers and parameter lists. The deprecation warning is front-loaded, and each section conveys necessary mode-specific information, though some repetition across modes could be tightened.

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 tool has 14 parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, so the description carries a heavy burden. It covers mode-specific required parameters well and an output schema exists, but it leaves strategy value semantics and operational behavior unexplained. This is adequate but with notable gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does meaningfully map parameters to each mode and marks required ones, which is valuable. However, it does not explain the meaning or accepted values of parameters like incremental_strategy, cdc_strategy, bookmark_strategy, or transformation_sql beyond their 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 'Generate AWS Glue data processing jobs — incremental, CDC, bookmarks,' naming the specific action and resource. The opening 'Deprecated. Prefer glue_job' explicitly distinguishes it from its sibling, so an agent can tell it apart immediately.

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 explicitly says 'Deprecated. Prefer glue_job,' giving a direct when-not-to-use instruction and naming the alternative. The mode breakdown further tells the agent which mode to select for incremental, CDC, or bookmark needs, though it does not deeply elaborate on conditions beyond deprecation.

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