chooser_create_table

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly describes the 'overwrite' parameter ('Delete an existing Chooser table before creation') and 'save' ('Save the asset package after creation'), which are key behavioral traits. It also states the return format ('Structured JSON...'). However, it does not mention potential side effects like failure when the table exists and overwrite is false, or any permission requirements. This is a notable gap but not severe.

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?

The description is well-structured with an Args list, Returns, KB reference, and an example. It is concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and every section earns its place. The example clarifies usage without unnecessary verbosity.

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 creation tool with 5 parameters, the description covers the purpose, all parameters, return format, and provides an example. It also points to a knowledge base for deeper context. It does not mention error handling or what happens if the table already exists with overwrite=false, but that is a minor omission given the other coverage.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively by explaining every parameter: name ('Asset name to create'), path ('Content Browser folder under /Game'), result_class ('Output object class path or class name'), overwrite ('Delete an existing Chooser table before creation'), and save ('Save the asset package after creation'). This adds meaning beyond the schema's type/default and is essential for correct usage.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create a Chooser table configured for object asset results.' It uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('Chooser table'), and the 'configured for object asset results' distinguishes it from siblings like chooser_add_asset_row (which adds rows) and chooser_inspect_table (which inspects). The example reinforces the intent.

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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives. It gives an example but no direct comparison to siblings such as chooser_add_asset_row or chooser_inspect_table. However, the purpose is clear enough that an agent could infer it is for creating a new table, but explicit guidance on when not to use it is missing.

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