⚠️ SCHEMA CHANGE: Create table with columns and constraints. Supports primary keys, defaults, NOT NULL. Fails if exists.

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

Discloses that it is a schema change, fails if table exists, and supports constraints. No annotations present, so description carries full burden; could add more on permissions or irreversibility but sufficient.

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?

Single sentence with a warning emoji front-loads key information. No redundant content, every word contributes to understanding.

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 creation tool with no output schema, description adequately explains purpose, constraints, and failure condition. Missing explanation of database_name parameter and context vs other DDL tools, but overall sufficient.

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?

Description adds context that primary keys, defaults, and NOT NULL are supported, mapping to column properties. However, it does not explain the 'database_name' parameter, and schema coverage is 0%. Partially compensates but incomplete.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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?

Implies usage for creating new tables, and notes 'Fails if exists' as a condition. No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternative tools like execute_schema_query or alter_table (if existed).

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