Create Redshift Light

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the operation creates or updates and only supports runtime properties, but it omits key behavioral details such as what happens when the light already exists and update_if_exists is false, whether an open document is required, and what side effects or return values to expect.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes either the action, the target resource, or a constraint, making it an economically written definition.

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?

The tool is moderately complex with ten parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description provides almost no contextual coverage. Missing details include required parameter semantics, update behavior, return format, and document prerequisites.

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 only 30%, so the description needs to compensate. It does not explain any of the ten parameters or their roles, and the phrase 'runtime-supported properties' is too generic to clarify which properties are actually settable or how they behave.

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 action (create or update) and a specific resource type (native Redshift light), which distinguishes it from generic creation tools and other Redshift-specific siblings. The qualifier 'using only runtime-supported properties' adds a clear scope constraint.

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 usage context is implied: use it when creating or updating a native Redshift light. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternative sibling to choose for other light-related or entity creation operations.

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