superset_rls_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that RLS adds a WHERE clause, explains the impact of filter_type, and provides clause syntax and examples. It does not cover potential error conditions or permission requirements, but for a create operation the disclosed behavior is substantive.

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 efficiently structured: a clear one-line purpose, a brief functional explanation, and a well-organized Args list with examples. Every sentence adds value, and the length is appropriate given the need to document parameters that the schema leaves undescribed.

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?

Despite having 7 parameters and no schema descriptions, the tool description provides complete parameter documentation, contextual guidance (e.g., how to obtain dataset/role IDs), and behavioral explanation of RLS and filter types. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained, and no prerequisites are missing for a creation tool.

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%, yet the description fully documents all 7 parameters in the Args section, including examples for clause, allowed values for filter_type, and source hints for tables and roles (from dataset_list, role_list). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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?

Description opens with 'Create a Row Level Security rule'—a specific verb and resource—and goes further to explain the rule's function (adding a WHERE clause to queries). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like superset_rls_update or superset_rls_delete.

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 the context of RLS behavior and the distinction between 'Regular' and 'Base' filter types, helping users decide when to use each. It also references dataset_list and role_list for obtaining IDs. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use superset_rls_update to modify existing rules'), leaving some implicit guidance.

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