create_chooser_table

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false). The description goes well beyond that, disclosing the one-undo-step application on existing tables, that saving is conditional on the change, the save_error failure path, and that validation errors are checked before the asset is created or loaded. This is exactly the context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the core create/load behavior followed by the mutation semantics and an explicit Returns block. Dense but every sentence carries information; minor verbosity in the parenthetical save clause keeps it short of a 5.

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 mutation tool with full annotation coverage and complete schema, the description supplies the missing return shape inline (asset_path, already_existed, saved, save_error) plus the error and undo semantics. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is absent.

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 the schema already documents name, result_type, package_path and output_object_class. The description adds only validation semantics (unknown result_type, class path that fails to load) which the schema largely restates; baseline 3 is appropriate when structured fields do the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create (or load if it already exists) a UChooserTable asset') and immediately clarifies the create-or-load semantics that distinguish it from a plain creator. An agent can tell it apart from siblings like list_chooser_tables or delete_chooser_table without opening any schema.

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 explains what happens on an existing table, which implies when the load branch applies, but never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over siblings (e.g. inspect_chooser_table, add_chooser_row) or any prerequisites. Usage is left to inference rather than stated.

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