claude-database-tools

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'creates an index' implies a schema mutation operation, the description doesn't address critical behavioral aspects: whether this requires specific database permissions, whether the operation is reversible, potential performance impacts during creation, or what happens if the index already exists. For a database mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents significant gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward database operation and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in conveying the core functionality.

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 database schema mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address behavioral implications, error conditions, performance considerations, or relationship to sibling tools. The agent would need to make assumptions about permissions, side effects, and appropriate usage contexts that aren't documented.

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?

The description mentions 'on a specified column or columns' which aligns with the 'columns' parameter, but doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond what the 100% schema coverage already provides. The schema descriptions comprehensively document each parameter's purpose, defaults, and requirements, so the description adds minimal value. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but not enhanced parameter understanding.

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 action ('creates an index') and target ('on a specified column or columns in an MSSQL Database table'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential alternatives like 'create_table' or 'get_table_alter_ddl' which might also involve database schema modifications.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'create_table', 'drop_table', and 'get_table_alter_ddl' available, there's no indication of when index creation is appropriate versus other schema operations or how it relates to data manipulation tools like 'insert_data' or 'update_data'.

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