akb_create_table

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the canonical URI returned, permissions inheritance, placement semantics, and supported column types. It does not detail side-effect behaviors like duplicate handling or error cases, but it provides meaningful behavioral context beyond a bare 'create' statement.

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?

Three dense sentences deliver the core action, canonical URI format, permissions model, column definition summary, and collection placement guidance. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the return value, placement, permissions, and essential column types. It does not address duplicates or error handling, but given the detailed input schema and the description's focus on the primary use case, it is sufficiently 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 coverage is high (88%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the collection parameter's grouping behavior, the vault-root alternative, and the response URI structure. It does not rehash every parameter, but the added semantics help disambiguate the most nuanced parameter.

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 identifies the action (create a structured data table) and the resource (a vault), with explicit placement rules via canonical URIs. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like akb_create_collection and akb_create_vault by focusing on table-specific behavior and collection grouping.

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 either at the vault root or inside a collection—and explains how collection placement affects browsing in akb_browse. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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