akb_create_table

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the response contains a canonical URI and explains that tables share permissions with documents. However, it omits details on conflict behavior (e.g., duplicate names), permission requirements, and response payload beyond the URI.

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 concise, using three sentences that are front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds necessary detail without redundancy. The structure is clear and efficient.

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?

While the description covers the essential aspects of creating a table, it does not address error conditions (e.g., duplicate names) or permission prerequisites. Given the tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete but could include more edge-case guidance.

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?

The input schema has 60% description coverage. The description adds context for the collection parameter (how tables appear in browsing) and reiterates column types. However, it does not elaborate on the vault or description parameters, and it fails to mention the optional 'required' field in columns. The added value is moderate but not fully compensating for the gaps.

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 the tool's function: 'Create a structured data table in a vault.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the context about tables living alongside documents and following permissions helps distinguish it from sibling tools like akb_alter_table and akb_drop_table.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool (creating a table) and offers guidance on using the optional collection parameter. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives, but the purpose is straightforward enough that usage is well implied.

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