snowflake_clone_tableCreate a zero-copy clone of an existing table by specifying source and target table names. This avoids duplicating data and saves storage costs.
Create a zero-copy clone of an existing table.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source_table | Yes | ||
| target_table | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / source_table / titleRemoved value: -"Source Table"Input schema / properties / target_table / titleRemoved value: -"Target Table"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"snowflake_clone_tableArguments"Output schema / titleRemoved value: -"snowflake_clone_tableDictOutput"v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the read/write nature is already conveyed. The description adds genuinely useful Snowflake-specific context via 'zero-copy' (instant, metadata-only, no data duplication), but omits prerequisites such as required privileges or whether an existing target will fail.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler and no redundancy against the schema or annotations. It is efficient, though arguably terse for a mutating operation that carries prerequisites.
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 output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the tool has only two params. However, for a mutation with 0% parameter documentation and no stated prerequisites or name-resolution rules, the description is too thin for an agent to invoke it confidently.
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 coverage is 0%, so both parameters are undocumented in the schema and the description does not compensate. It never names or explains source_table or target_table, leaving the agent to guess whether values are qualified names or plain identifiers.
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?
States a specific verb (create clone) and resource (table) with the defining Snowflake trait 'zero-copy'. It separates the resource target from siblings like snowflake_clone_schema and snowflake_clone_database, but does not distinguish itself from snowflake_clone_table_recipe or explain how it differs from snowflake_create_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?
No when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative guidance. It never mentions when a clone is preferable to create_table or clone_table_recipe, and gives no indication that the target must not already exist. The agent must infer all of the routing itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.