tables_db_create_table

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the prerequisite of having a database resource, it doesn't disclose whether this is a write operation (implied by 'create' but not explicit), what permissions are needed, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on failure. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides important prerequisite information. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured by separating the prerequisite into a distinct 'Prerequisites' section.

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 this is a creation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and prerequisites but lacks information about what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. The schema handles parameter documentation well, but the description doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral 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%, meaning all parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the 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 states the tool creates a new table, which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'tables_db_create' (which might create databases) or 'tables_db_create_row' (which creates rows within tables). The purpose is understandable but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 guidance about prerequisites: 'Before using this route, you should create a new database resource...' This gives clear context about when to use this tool. However, it doesn't mention when NOT to use it or alternatives among the many sibling tools, which prevents a perfect score.

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