tables_db_create_index

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks critical behavioral details. It mentions a design guideline but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether the operation is idempotent, potential impacts on performance, error conditions, or what happens if an index already exists. This leaves the agent guessing about side effects and constraints beyond the basic action.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core action, using two sentences that are directly relevant. However, the second sentence is more of a tip than essential guidance, slightly reducing efficiency. Overall, it's well-structured with minimal 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?

Given the complexity of a 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, return values, and practical usage context, leaving significant gaps for an agent to operate effectively in a database management scenario.

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 fully documents all 7 parameters (e.g., 'database_id', 'columns'). The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying columns are central, which is already clear from the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding with examples or context.

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 the action ('Creates an index') and the target ('on the columns listed'), which is specific and actionable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'tables_db_delete_index' or 'tables_db_get_index' by focusing on creation, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools (e.g., 'tables_db_create_table'), leaving room for slight ambiguity in scope.

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 minimal guidance with 'Your index should include all the columns you will query in a single request,' which hints at a design best practice but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to create an index vs. rely on existing ones, or how it compares to other database operations). No explicit when/when-not or sibling alternatives are mentioned, offering little practical direction.

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