Stages Create Stage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds the meaningful qualifier 'internal' (Snowflake-internal storage, not an external stage), but it omits required privileges, the effect of if_not_exists defaulting to true, and what happens on name collision. Modest added value over annotations.

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 no filler, so it is efficient. But it is under-specified rather than concise — the brevity comes at the cost of content an agent needs for a multi-parameter create operation.

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. However, for a creation tool with a hierarchical target (database/schema/stage_name), a defaulted if_not_exists flag, and only 60% schema coverage, the description omits where the stage is created, what 'internal' excludes, and the idempotency implications. Significant gaps remain for the operation's complexity.

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 only 60%, so the description must compensate, yet it mentions no parameters at all — not if_not_exists (defaulting to true, which materially changes behavior), not comment, not database/schema scoping. The only semantic hint, 'internal', does not map to any parameter and leaves the 40% undocumented gap entirely unaddressed.

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) and resource (internal named stage in Snowflake), which cleanly separates it from stages_list_stages, stages_describe_stage, and stages_drop_stage in the sibling list. It does not explicitly name or contrast against those siblings, but the verb+resource pair is unambiguous.

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 stages_list_stages/stages_describe_stage, no preconditions (e.g., target database/schema must exist, privileges required), and no mention of external stages as an alternative concept. The agent must infer all of this.

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