Generate a CRUD page from a table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what gets created (table, form, queries) but doesn't state side effects like whether it creates/overwrites queries, whether existing pages/widgets are affected, whether the generator requires authentication or particular datasource types, or what the return payload looks like. For a generator tool with no annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

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 well-structured sentences that front-load the primary purpose ('Runs Appsmith's own page generator') and add the differentiator ('supported way... rather than being assembled by hand'). Every word earns its place, no fluff or repetition.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool produces (table, form, wired-up queries) and when to use it. However, it omits behavioral specifics like whether optional parameters (columns, searchColumn) have validation constraints, how the generator handles multi-query side effects, and the nature of the return value. For a generation tool with moderate complexity and zero annotations, additional behavioral context would improve completeness.

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 already documents all parameters well. The description adds context by explaining the broader purpose of build artifacts (table, form, queries) that maps to what the tool assembles, and implies the relationships between the required parameters. It augments the schema's basic field labels with behavioral context.

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 ('Runs Appsmith's own page generator'), the resource ('builds a page with a table, a form and wired-up queries from one datasource table'), and explicitly differentiates from alternatives ('layout comes from Appsmith rather than being assembled by hand'). This distinguishes it from sibling create_page.

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 explicitly states this is 'the supported way to create a complete, detailed screen' and contrasts it with hand-assembling layouts, giving clear guidance on when to use this versus the alternative create_page approach. It also implies prerequisites via the datasourceId sourced from appsmith_list_datasources.

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