Entities: create

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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, closed-world). The description adds substantive behavior beyond that: creation produces a real table in the active project, and each option's effect is spelled out (public = queryable without signing in, lock_records = blocks API record creation). It stops short of stating permissions or whether creation is reversible, but the added context is real.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and its next-step, with the option list trailing where it belongs. The final sentence is a long run-on enumerating four flags, but each clause carries distinct information, so there is little waste.

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 create tool with no output schema, it covers what an agent needs: the resource created, where it lives, the next step, and flag meanings. The minor gap is that it never says what is returned (e.g., an id) or how the new entity is referenced by the follow-up fields_add call.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds interpretive gloss beyond the terse schema strings — e.g. 'public' is expanded to 'queryable without signing in' and 'lock_records' to blocking new records through the API. That meaningfully clarifies the four boolean flags for an agent deciding which to set.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Create a new entity') immediately followed by a functional definition ('a new database table in the active project'). It also disambiguates from the sibling that follows it in the workflow (fields_add) and from entities_update/entities_delete.

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?

Explicit sequencing guidance: create the entity, then 'add its columns afterwards with `fields_add`'. This tells the agent both when to use it and which sibling handles the next step, which is exactly the alternative-routing the dimension asks for.

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