create_data_asset

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), so the safety bar is lower. The description reinforces the write nature and adds behavioral nuance via the return contract, notably the 'saved' flag implying the asset is not auto-persisted, plus the workflow for populating it. It stops short of stating what happens on a duplicate name, so not a 5.

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 verb and resource, and the returns contract is corralled into its own line. There is mild redundancy between 'the single-record alternative to a DataTable row' and the later pick-DataAsset/pick-DataTable sentence, but the content is dense and useful rather than padding.

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?

There is no output schema, so spelling out the return object ({asset_name, package_path, parent_class, asset_path, success, saved, message}) is exactly the missing context. Combined with the creation guidance, the parent-class note, and the read/write follow-up tools, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented ('check the body for the default' etc.). The description only alludes to parent_class via 'a given parent class' and adds no syntax or format guidance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries parameter meaning.

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 (Create) and resource (a DataAsset instance of a given parent class), then explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling DataTable concept: 'the single-record alternative to a DataTable row.' Concrete examples (biome definition, lock profile, weapon config) make the resource recognizable 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?

Gives an explicit selection rule — 'Pick a DataAsset when things point AT it individually; pick a DataTable when you want many rows edited together' — naming the alternative and the deciding condition. It also routes the agent to the correct follow-up tools (set_data_asset_property to fill, get_data_asset_info to read).

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