snowflake_clone_table

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 does reveal that the clone is 'zero-copy', implying a metadata-only operation, but says nothing about failure conditions (e.g., target already exists), required privileges, reversibility, or any side effects. For a data-definition operation, this is a minimal disclosure that leaves critical behavior untold.

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, concise sentence with no redundant words, and it includes the useful qualifier 'zero-copy'. However, it is not structured (e.g., no bullet points or sections) and is overly brief, missing substantial content. The conciseness is appropriate for what is included, but the trade-off is under-specification.

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?

Given the tool's low parameter complexity (2 flat strings) and existence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it fails to provide essential operational context such as naming conventions (whether the target must be new), the relationship to other clone tools, or any constraints on source/target usage. An agent calling this tool would have significant knowledge gaps about correct invocation.

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%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the parameters. It does not mention that source_table and target_table likely require fully qualified names, nor any format expectations. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it fails to bridge the coverage gap.

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 action ('Create') and the resource ('a zero-copy clone of an existing table'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling clone tools (database, schema) by explicitly mentioning 'table', though it does not contrast with them. The description is clear enough for an agent to understand the tool's core function.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like snowflake_clone_database or snowflake_clone_schema, nor any prerequisite conditions (e.g., target table must not exist, source must exist). No context about suitable scenarios or exclusions is provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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