create_string_table

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

Annotations mark this as a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation, and the description goes beyond them: it discloses that a pre-existing table is returned unchanged with namespace not applied and already_exists true, that the asset is saved, and that no entries are created. Authorization and rate/side-effect specifics are still absent, keeping it shy of 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 create action, then the edge case, then the return fields, then the follow-up tool. Efficient and ordered well, though the inline Returns enumeration duplicates information already conveyed narrative-wise.

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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully enumerates the return fields (asset_path, string_table_id, namespace, entry_count, created, saved, message) and covers creation semantics, the collision case, and the next step. Complete enough for an agent to call and interpret it, missing only permission/error context.

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 name, namespace, and package_path are already documented with defaults. The description restates their roles and adds one semantic nuance (namespace not applied on an existing table), but the schema does the heavy lifting; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Creates a UStringTable asset at package_path/name') and specifies the initial state (no entries) and the save. It routes to the sibling for populating entries via 'Add entries with set_string_table_entry', so an agent can distinguish it from the many string_table tools without opening a 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?

Implicitly defines the create-then-fill workflow by pointing at set_string_table_entry for entries, and clarifies the already-exists case. It doesn't state prerequisites (e.g., permission needs, whether the package path must exist) or explicitly when not to use it, so it's clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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