create_data_table

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states that a DataTable asset is created, but does not mention side effects like overwriting existing assets, required permissions, or consequences of invalid row_struct references. The KB reference offers some direction but not concrete behavioral traits.

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: a one-line purpose, a brief definition, an Args section, a KB pointer, and an example. It is front-loaded with the action and organized cleanly, with no wasted words.

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 an output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: what it does, typical use cases, parameter roles, and an example. It does not mention potential pitfalls (e.g., duplicate names, dependency on struct existence) or what the return value contains, but the output schema likely covers return details. Overall, it is adequate but leaves some operational gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all three parameters with brief explanations and an example for table_name. However, it does not specify path format or that row_struct must reference an existing Struct asset. The explanations add value but are not comprehensive enough to fully compensate for missing schema descriptions.

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 verb and resource: 'Create a DataTable asset.' It also defines what a DataTable is, making the purpose unambiguous. Among dozens of sibling tools, there is no other DataTable creation tool, so it is easily distinguished.

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 gives context on ideal use cases ('item databases, enemy stats, level config') but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives. No exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools like create_struct are provided, leaving usage guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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