sigma_create_user_attribute

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint: false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint: false). The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as idempotency, overwrite behavior, permissions required, or what happens on duplicate names. It merely repeats the 'create' action without disclosing side effects or prerequisites.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single purpose statement followed by a structured parameter list. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition. The bullet-style parameter documentation is easily scannable and avoids redundancy with the schema.

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 tool is a simple create operation with three well-documented parameters and an output schema present, so return values need not be explained. However, it lacks context about the relationship to other user attribute tools (e.g., that created attributes are later assigned to teams/tenants) and does not mention any prerequisites or post-conditions. This makes it minimally viable but leaves some contextual gaps for an agent unfamiliar with Sigma's user attribute model.

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?

Although schema_description_coverage is 0%, the description provides explicit explanations and examples for all three parameters: name ('e.g. Region, CustomerID'), default_value ('Default string value assigned when no override exists'), and description ('Optional description'). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, which only lists titles and defaults. However, it does not delve into edge cases or type constraints, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 tool's function: 'Create a user attribute for RLS or dynamic parameters.' This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like sigma_set_user_attribute_for_teams, which assign values to teams, and sigma_list_user_attributes, which lists existing attributes. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies the tool is for creating user attributes as opposed to setting them for specific teams or tenants, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives. It provides no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, and the mention of 'RLS or dynamic parameters' hints at use cases but lacks direct exclusions. This is implied usage, not explicit guidance.

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