Create DataLens Trino cluster

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (openWorld, non-idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real context beyond them: the call is asynchronous (returns an operation), it incurs ongoing billing while the cluster runs, and it is experimental and never actually exercised. The billing and untested caveats are exactly the kind of behavioral warning annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and no filler. The final experimental caveat is somewhat meta but earns its place as a reliability warning.

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 an 8-parameter, deeply nested create tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: it is a creation, it is async (operation returned), it costs money, and it is experimental. An agent has enough to decide and invoke correctly, with only fine-grained parameter detail left to the schema.

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% across all 8 parameters, including nested worker_config, so the schema already documents every field. The description contributes nothing about parameter meaning or defaults, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Make a Trino cluster") and even notes the return value is an operation. The resource name clearly separates it from sibling create tools like datalens_sparkclusters_create and from the trinoclusters list/get/start/stop siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

"A cluster is cloud resources, billed while it runs: ask the person before calling" gives a genuine precondition for invocation (human confirmation due to cost). However it names no alternative tool or when-not-to-use condition, leaving routing between this and sibling cluster tools to inference.

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