create_table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects, permissions, idempotency, or whether changes require a commit or affect branches. The provided defaults and column format relate to parameter semantics, not behavioral transparency.

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 well-structured with a front-loaded purpose sentence followed by an Args list. It is slightly long but each parameter explanation adds value, and the columns example is particularly useful.

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?

With 7 parameters and no annotations, the description covers parameter semantics thoroughly but lacks broader workflow context, such as whether changes are staged, need committing, or affect the visual canvas beyond simple coordinates. The presence of an output schema handles return values, but the tool's role in the schema editing process is not explained.

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?

The JSON schema contains only titles with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description explains every parameter in detail, including the structure of columns with an example, coordinate semantics, color defaults, and branch context. This substantially adds meaning beyond 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?

The description begins with 'Создать таблицу в схеме' (Create a table in the schema), which clearly identifies the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like edit_table, delete_table, and create_schema by specifying exactly what is being created.

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?

Usage guidance is implicit: the description states the purpose and lists required parameters (schema_uuid, table_name), so an agent can infer this tool is for adding a new table. However, there is no explicit direction on when to use this versus alternatives, or any prerequisites or exclusions.

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