onelake_create_shortcut

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining side effects. It states that the shortcut references data without duplicating it, names the source and target locations, and documents conflict_policy behavior when a shortcut already exists. It does not discuss permissions or failure modes, but the core mutation behavior is transparent.

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 a clear first sentence, a purpose statement, a compact args list, return description, and a concrete example. Every section adds useful information and there is no filler or redundant content.

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 tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage scenarios, parameter semantics, return value, and a complete invocation example. An agent has enough information to select and call the tool correctly.

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%, but the description compensates fully by explaining every parameter with plain-language meaning. It clarifies source vs. target semantics, provides path format examples, explains the optional workspace behavior, and enumerates conflict_policy values. This is far beyond the bare schema property names.

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 states a specific action: creating a OneLake shortcut from one lakehouse to another. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like onelake_list_shortcuts and onelake_delete_shortcut by naming the exact resource and relationship being created.

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 gives concrete usage context, such as avoiding data duplication and supporting medallion architectures where Dev/Test/Prod read from a central Bronze layer. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like onelake_write, but the intended scenario is clear enough for an agent to decide when to use this tool.

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