apply_table_creation_plan

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It discloses async operation and return type (job_id, TablePlanApplied). However, it does not cover permissions, side effects (e.g., table creation is irreversible), or error conditions for invalid plans. Adequate but incomplete.

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?

Well-structured: summary, usage context, parameter list, return info. Front-loaded with key details. Parameter list is a bit lengthy but each line is functional. No unnecessary repetition.

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?

Covers purpose, usage context, parameter meanings, async nature, and return type. However, lacks examples, error handling, prerequisites (e.g., valid plan), and deeper explanation of parameter interactions. Adequate for a moderate-complexity tool but not comprehensive.

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 description's parameter explanations are essential. Each of the 6 parameters (plan, debug, args, priority, verbose, client_timeout) gets a brief description. While some are vague (e.g., 'Additional arguments for plan application'), overall it compensates well for missing schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states 'Apply a provided table creation plan to resolve schema conflicts and create a new table,' specifying the action, resource, and purpose. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_table' and 'plan_table_creation' by focusing on applying an existing plan with conflict resolution.

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 states when to use: 'when schema conflicts exist after plan creation and need manual resolution' and notes automatic handling when no conflicts. Provides a concrete example of a common conflict (two parquet files with same column but different datatype). Lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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