Adh.Query.Create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the most important behavior: a two-step guarded write where a preview is followed by a confirm token. It does not say what the tool returns on a preview-only call, what happens with an invalid or missing confirm token, or whether creation is idempotent, so meaningful behavior remains undisclosed.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste; the core action leads and the guard/non-execution constraint follows immediately.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers purpose, the guard sequence, and the key non-execution boundary. It is slightly thin on the preview-versus-confirm transition (what the first call yields and what the second requires), which is the main thing an agent must get right.

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% for 4 parameters, so the description must compensate; it adds real meaning for 'confirm' (a confirmation token tied to a validate_only preview) but says nothing about title, customer_id, or query_text beyond their names. The phrase 'validate_only preview' also risks suggesting a validate_only parameter that does not exist in the schema.

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 a stored ADH analysis query') and explicitly delimits scope with 'Creates only; does not run the query', which cleanly separates it from the sibling adh.query.start. An agent can pick between them without opening either 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 guarded flow ('validate_only preview + confirm token') gives clear context on how the call is meant to be sequenced, and 'does not run the query' implies adh.query.start is the alternative for execution. It never names that sibling explicitly nor states when-not to use this tool, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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