Streams Create Stream

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't explain that append_only changes semantics, that if_not_exists defaults to true (so creation may silently no-op), or what openWorld behavior means for an external object. For a write tool with zero added context, this is thin.

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?

One sentence with zero waste and the verb front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than efficient — the brevity comes from omission, not from tight editing of useful content.

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 needn't be described, but for a 6-parameter creation tool the description omits identifier quoting rules, the meaning of append_only, and the if_not_exists default behavior. An agent would have to infer these from the schema alone.

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 67%, and the two undocumented parameters (append_only, if_not_exists) are exactly the ones with non-obvious behavioral impact. The description does not mention any parameter, quote/identifier semantics, or the append-only choice, so it fails to compensate for 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 uses a specific verb and resource ("Create a CDC stream") and names the target object types (table or view), so an agent can see this is the creation counterpart to streams_list_streams, streams_describe_stream and streams_drop_stream. It does not explicitly call out those siblings, but the resource 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 create a stream versus using dynamic tables, no prerequisites (table must exist, privileges required), and no mention of the sibling stream tools. Only the resource name implies usage.

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