claude-database-tools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool creates a table but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether it requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent (e.g., fails if table exists), what happens on success/failure, or any side effects (e.g., locking). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to scan and understand quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given this is a mutation tool (creates a table) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on permissions, error handling, return values, or how it differs from siblings like 'get_table_alter_ddl'. For a tool that modifies database state, more context is needed.

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 the schema fully documents both parameters (tableName and columns). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying column definitions are specified, which is already clear from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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') and resource ('new table in the MSSQL Database'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_tables' or 'drop_table' by specifying creation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like 'get_table_ddl' or 'describe_table'.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., database permissions), when to choose this over other table-related tools like 'get_table_ddl' for planning, or any constraints (e.g., table name uniqueness).

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