agent_tables

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It does mention the confirm requirement for delete actions and suggests an availability check, but it fails to disclose other important behaviors: it does not state that migrate or update are also mutations, does not describe error/return formats, auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects on related resources. This is insufficient for a multi-action mutating tool.

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 compact and structured: it opens with a broad context sentence, then narrows to the tool's scope, lists actions, and ends with two critical usage constraints. Every sentence contributes essential information without redundancy, though the action list is unavoidably long.

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 (17 parameters, 14 actions, nested objects, no output schema) the description is inadequate for an agent to correctly invoke most actions. It does not explain which parameters are required per action, what constitutes a valid 'availability' result, or what happens after a successful create/migrate/delete. The description would need to map actions to their supporting parameters to be complete.

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 94%, so the schema already documents most parameters in detail. The description adds minimal value by listing actions and noting the confirm requirement, which ties to a parameter. It does not clarify which parameters apply to which actions (e.g., that 'create' needs tableDefinition, 'query' needs query), but the high schema coverage earns a baseline 3.

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 tool's purpose: 'Manage Agent Tables within a project' and enumerates 14 distinct actions. This gives a specific verb-resource pair and is distinct from sibling debug_* and platform_* tools by its focus on agent tables. However, it does not explicitly contrast with any sibling tool, which keeps it slightly below 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 two concrete usage rules: 'Use availability first to diagnose TABLE_UNAVAILABLE' and 'Delete actions require confirm=true'. These are actionable guidelines. However, it does not specify when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., platform_projects for project-level ops) or when not to use it, leaving a gap in routing guidance.

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