create_model_column

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: creation is staged (preview by default, publication is a separate step) and it runs parent-managed-property, publisher-prefix, and duplicate-logical-name validation before acting. What's missing is any note on permissions or side effects of the validation failures.

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?

Four dense sentences with the type list front-loaded and the workflow caveat at the end. The type enumeration partially duplicates the schema enum, but the sentence is tightly packed with no filler.

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 33-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers the critical workflow semantics (dry-run default, separate publication, validation checks) but leaves most type-specific parameters undocumented, so an agent would have to reverse-engineer the schema to fill in a valid call.

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?

With 33 parameters and only 12% schema description coverage, the schema documents almost nothing, and the description does not fill the gap. It mentions choice binding via local options or global_choice_name and type-specific validation, but max_length, precision, format, required_level, date_time_behavior, default_value, min/max values, and the label structures are left entirely unexplained.

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 (create) and resource (column) and enumerates the nine supported column types, which lets an agent distinguish it from create_model_table and create_model_choices without opening the schema. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 line 'Default preview; save and publication remain separate' implies the dry-run-first workflow, and the validation checks hint at preconditions, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over create_model_choices or create_model_table. Guidance is implied rather than stated.

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