superset_dataset_get_or_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses key behaviors: existing datasets are returned, missing ones create a physical dataset, schema_name defaults to DB schema, and it returns a JSON string. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., schema refresh), error conditions, or permission requirements, leaving minor 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 well-structured with a one-line summary, behavior explanation, Args list, and Returns section. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition or fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

The description covers the essential aspects: purpose, behavioral logic, all parameters, and return value. Since an output schema exists (per context signals), its absence in the description is acceptable. The main missing piece is error handling and edge cases (e.g., what happens if the table doesn't exist), but for moderate complexity this is reasonably complete.

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?

The description explicitly covers all three parameters with meaningful context: database_id is tied to superset_database_list, table_name is clearly the table in the database, and schema_name includes examples and default behavior. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, adding value beyond the raw JSON schema.

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 opens with 'Get an existing dataset or create a new one for a table,' which clearly states the verb, resource, and the get-or-create logic. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like superset_dataset_get and superset_dataset_create, which would only perform one side of this operation.

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 explains that if a dataset for the table already exists it returns it, otherwise creates a new physical dataset. This clearly implies an idempotent 'ensure exists' use case, but it stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or providing when-not-to-use guidance. The context is sufficient for most agents.

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