Snowflake Create Schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation/safety profile is partly covered. The description adds no behavioral context such as required privileges, what happens if the schema already exists (relevant given if_not_exists defaults to true), or the effect of omitting 'database'.

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 short sentence with the object and scope front-loaded; there is no filler or redundancy. It is efficient but sparse rather than deliberately structured around what the caller needs to know.

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 no explanation, but this is a DDL mutation tool with 4 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no usage or prerequisite context. The default-true if_not_exists (idempotency) and the unnamed database fallback are material omissions.

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 must therefore carry the full burden, but it only obliquely gestures at the 'database' parameter via 'specified database'. The required 'name', the optional 'comment', and the 'if_not_exists' default of true are entirely unexplained, including whether the call is idempotent.

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+resource ('Create a new schema') and a scope ('inside a specified database'), which is enough to distinguish it from read-oriented siblings like snowflake_list_schemas or snowflake_describe_schema. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from snowflake_clone_schema or snowflake_create_database, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. Nothing tells the agent whether this is preferred over clone_schema or what prerequisites (existing database, active role) are needed.

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