create_animation_table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the effect (shows live values) but does not disclose side effects, prerequisites, behavior on existing tables (beyond 'add to an existing one' without specifics), reversibility, or error conditions. For a mutating tool, this is a significant gap – the agent cannot anticipate what happens if the table already exists or what permissions are needed.

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 sentences, front-loads the action, and includes a helpful example for the variables parameter. No redundant fluff. The structure is clear and efficient, though the second sentence explaining variables could be seen as an implementation detail that might belong elsewhere, but it earns its place.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description provides the core purpose, an example, and the context (online requirement). However, it omits details about the 'name' parameter, what happens on conflicts, and how to interact with the table after creation (though a sibling open_animation_table exists). This leaves gaps that could mislead an agent into incorrect calls.

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 explain both parameters. It explains 'variables' well: 'variables is a comma-separated list of variable names' with an example. However, it does not explain the 'name' parameter at all, leaving its role (table name) implicit. It adds value for one of two parameters, but the other remains undocumented in both schema and description.

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 'Create an animation table (or add to an existing one) and fill it with variables to watch.' This gives a specific verb (create/add), a resource (animation table), and an action (fill with variables). It distinguishes from siblings like list_animation_tables (list), delete_animation_table (delete), and open_animation_table (open) by implying creation/modification. No ambiguity.

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?

It provides a clear usage context: 'With the project online (simulator or PLC), the table shows live values in the Control Expert UI.' This implies the tool is used for live monitoring. It also covers both creating and adding, which are the two primary use cases. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the verb and examples make it contextually clear.

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