create_table

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but only states that a table is created from a structured definition. It omits required permissions, behavior when the table already exists, the effect of the schema's default ifNotExists=true, and whether the operation is transactional or irreversible.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise, though its brevity contributes to the broader completeness gaps rather than being a structural flaw.

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 DDL tool with 8 parameters, low schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It covers the high-level concept but leaves operational, permission, and idempotency details unaddressed.

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 low (25%) and there are 8 parameters. The description names columns, indexes, and foreign keys, which maps to three parameter groups, but it does not explain table name, engine, database, primaryKey, or ifNotExists semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Crea una tabla') and adds the source domain ('a partir de una definición estructurada de columnas, índices y claves foráneas'). It does not differentiate from siblings like execute_sql or run_query that could also create tables, but the purpose is clear.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no prerequisites or alternatives are mentioned. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Crea' and the required structured definition.

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