create_procedure

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the destructive/replacing nature is known. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: 'Commits automatically (DDL)' and 'Only available on writable connections.' These are behavioral constraints not present in the annotations, and they do not contradict them.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and immediately followed by essential constraints. There is zero fluff or repetition of schema/annotation details.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter tool with an output schema and destructiveHint annotation, the description covers the essential operating context: what it creates/replaces, the required SQL form, auto-commit behavior, and connection restrictions. It doesn't explain return values, but the output schema exists and the tool is straightforward, so this is reasonably complete.

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 100%, and the schema descriptions for both parameters ('Connection name from list_schemas. Must have readonly=false.' and 'Full CREATE OR REPLACE PROCEDURE/FUNCTION/PACKAGE [BODY] DDL statement.') are already detailed. The description adds a general rule ('must start with CREATE') but does not add much beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Create or replace') and resource ('procedure, function, or package') and adds scope via 'full DDL statement'. It distinguishes from siblings like create_trigger and call_procedure by naming the exact object types, so the agent knows exactly what this tool does.

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 context: the statement must start with CREATE and only works on writable connections, which implies when it can be used. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., versus execute_unsafe_query for DDL). This is clear context but no explicit exclusions or alternatives, so it earns a 3.

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