create_table

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool creates a table/entity, can optionally create columns, and supports dry_run. However, it omits operational behaviors like whether it requires an open model, what happens on success (return value), or any side effects beyond creation. The description adds some context but lacks depth for a mutation 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 two succinct sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. It avoids redundancy, uses precise terminology, and includes the key optional feature inline. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves out critical contextual details such as prerequisites (e.g., the model must exist), the expected return value, and whether the operation modifies the model in memory. While it mentions dry_run and columns, it does not address how an agent should handle errors or confirm success. The description is adequate but not fully complete for a mutation tool.

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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only clarifies the 'columns' and 'dry_run' parameters, leaving 'model_id', 'name', 'code', and 'comment' unexplained. These are not self-evident, especially 'model_id', which is required. The description provides minimal value for the majority of parameters.

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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'a table (PDM) or entity (CDM/LDM)'. It distinguishes itself from create_column by referencing the shape of its column spec, and mentions optional inline columns, which sets it apart from other create tools. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 implies usage context (creating a table/entity, optionally with columns) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_column or create_model. It mentions 'Optionally pass an inline columns array' which hints at a usage option, but there is no clear exclusion or alternative routing. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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