create_presto_engine

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It details configuration options and constraints (e.g., engine_id pattern, description length), but does not disclose side effects (e.g., permissions needed, cost, idempotency, or conflict handling). Lacks information about the creation process length or error scenarios.

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 well-structured with clear sections (example payload, args, autoscaling, predefined configs, returns). It is somewhat lengthy but organized, and the key information is front-loaded. Some redundancy exists between the example and the parameter descriptions, but overall it is efficient.

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 tool's complexity (nested objects, many optional fields), the description covers configuration details, autoscaling, predefined sizes, and return value. It includes constraints and examples. However, it lacks information on error handling, validation behavior, and does not mention that engine names must be unique or that certain configurations may fail.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains each parameter, including required/optional status, types, nested structures (e.g., configuration with coordinator/worker/autoscaling), constraints (e.g., min/max quantities), and provides an example payload. The autoscaling section details all fields. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Create a new Presto engine in watsonx.data.' It provides specific verb and resource, and the details (predefined configs, autoscaling) align with Presto engine creation. While it doesn't explicitly compare with sibling tools (e.g., create_prestissimo_engine), the tool name and context make the purpose unambiguous.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_spark_engine or create_prestissimo_engine. It does not include prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use. The description focuses on the 'how' but not the 'when'.

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