crearTabla

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: it's a mutation tool (creates new tables), it will fail if the table already exists (error behavior), and it requires defining table name and column structure. However, it doesn't mention permissions, transaction safety, or what happens on success (e.g., confirmation message).

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 clear sections (PROPÓSITO, REGLA, USO, EJEMPLO) and front-loaded key information. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 2 parameters and no annotations, though the example could be slightly more concise. Every sentence earns its place by providing distinct guidance.

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 tool's complexity (mutation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job covering the essentials: purpose, exclusion rules, and parameter overview. It could be more complete by mentioning what happens on success or error details beyond 'fallará' (will fail), but it's largely adequate for the context.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters ('nombreTabla' and 'columnas'). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'Define el nombre de la tabla y la estructura de sus columnas' (Define the table name and the structure of its columns), which essentially restates what the schema says. The example provides some context but no new parameter details.

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 explicitly states the purpose as 'Crear una tabla COMPLETAMENTE NUEVA en la base de datos' (Create a COMPLETELY NEW table in the database), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'agregarColumna' (add column) or 'modificarTabla' (modify table) by emphasizing it's for new tables only, not modifications.

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 explicit usage guidelines: 'No uses esta herramienta para modificar o agregar columnas a una tabla que ya existe. La herramienta fallará si la tabla ya existe.' (Do not use this tool to modify or add columns to an existing table. The tool will fail if the table already exists.) This clearly defines when NOT to use it and implicitly points to alternatives like 'agregarColumna' for modifications.

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