create_data_registry

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent. The description adds real value beyond them by spelling out the idempotency semantics (re-loads and returns an existing asset), the ItemStruct/RowStruct coupling constraint, and the full return shape despite there being no output_schema.

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 verb+resource, followed by the key constraint and idempotency note. The inline Returns block is long but justified because no output schema exists, so the structure earns its space.

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?

No output schema, so the description compensates by enumerating the return fields; it also covers the idempotency and RowStruct constraints. Only the routing relative to sibling registry tools is under-specified.

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 all four parameters, including the item_struct example. The description adds one genuine constraint not in the schema (later DataTable sources must match RowStruct), so baseline 3 with slight added value is appropriate; package_path and registry_type are not elaborated.

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+resource (creates/saves a UDataRegistry asset) and explains the defining characteristic (ItemStruct binding). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like initialize_data_registry, add_data_registry_source, and get_data_registry_info.

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?

Usage is implied rather than prescribed: the note that DataTable sources attached later must use a matching RowStruct tells the agent the prerequisite context, but there is no explicit 'use this instead of X' routing against the DataRegistry siblings. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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