create_index

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. While 'Creates an index' implies a write operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires admin permissions, if it's reversible (e.g., via drop_table), potential performance impacts during creation, or error conditions. For a database mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 front-loads the core action and resource. Every word earns its place without redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse quickly while conveying the essential purpose.

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 the complexity of a database index creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, side effects), usage context, and expected outcomes. For a mutation tool in a set of database operations, this leaves critical gaps for an agent to operate safely and effectively.

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%, with all 6 parameters well-documented in the input schema (e.g., tableName, columns, isUnique). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying column specification, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting without compensating for any gaps.

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 the resource ('on a specified column or columns in an MSSQL Database table'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings (e.g., create_table, drop_table) beyond the general domain of database operations, which prevents a perfect score.

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., table must exist), performance implications, or when to choose indexing over other operations like query optimization. With siblings like create_table and update_data, this lack of context leaves the agent without clear usage boundaries.

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