Snowflake Clone Table Recipe

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds that this is a composite recipe executed in one call, but it omits permissions, target-table behavior, and what happens if the target already exists.

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 words. It communicates the essential action and the distinguishing Time Travel option 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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a composite clone tool in a large sibling set, the description leaves out the distinction from snowflake_clone_table and does not fully cover the optional Time Travel parameter semantics.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains that at_or_before accepts a Time Travel timestamp or statement ID, which is useful, but source_table and target_table are only self-documenting names and no format details are provided.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Clone table') plus the Time Travel capability, so the core purpose is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool snowflake_clone_table, which weakens sibling differentiation.

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 phrase 'with Time Travel timestamp or statement ID' implies the tool is for cloning a table at a historical point, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The implied context is somewhat useful but far from complete.

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