Recipes Clone Table Recipe

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

Annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds that this is a composite recipe that accepts Time Travel timestamp or statement ID and performs the clone in one call, but it does not mention permissions, target-table existence requirements, or failure behavior.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. It communicates the core operation and distinguishing Time Travel capability immediately.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the mutation safety profile. However, for a clone operation the description omits operationally important context such as whether the target table must not already exist or what permissions are needed.

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 schema documents source_table and target_table quoting rules, while leaving at_or_before undocumented. The description compensates by explaining that at_or_before can be a Time Travel timestamp or statement ID, though it does not specify accepted formats or optionality.

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 a clear verb and resource: 'Clone table' with Time Travel timestamp or statement ID in 1 call. It is distinguishable from generic cloning, but it does not explicitly name or compare against sibling tools such as tables_clone_table.

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?

Usage is implied by 'with Time Travel timestamp or statement ID in 1 call', suggesting it is appropriate when a time-travel clone is needed and a single-call composite is preferred. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative.

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