create_model_table

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: creation defaults to a preview/dry run and the tool deliberately stops short of form placement and publication, so the agent knows the operation is staged. With destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false already declared, the preview default is the key mitigating detail and it is disclosed. What is not covered is reversibility of a created table or failure modes.

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?

Three dense sentences with the creation intent first, prerequisites second, and side-effect exclusions last. No restatement of the name and 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 destructive, 15-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the decisions an agent must get right: dry-run default, solution/publisher prerequisite, and what the tool intentionally omits. It stops short of describing the execute-mode response or ownership-type implications, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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?

At 27% schema description coverage across 15 parameters (many duplicated as snake/camel aliases), the description carries real weight but only explains a few: the primary text name column, the solution requirement, and publisher-prefix validation. Ownership type, description, display collection name, maxLength, and the language_code/text label structure are entirely left to 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Create an ordinary custom table with a primary text name column") and qualifies the table type ("ordinary"), which implicitly excludes other table kinds. It also names the underlying mechanism (native EntityDefinitions). It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as create_model_column or create_model_relationship, leaving that to the resource noun.

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?

Prerequisites are spelled out: an existing unmanaged solution and matching publisher prefixes. It also delineates scope by stating it does not place fields on forms or request publication, which implicitly routes the agent to publish/field tools afterwards. No explicit named alternatives, but the when/when-not conditions are clear.

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