akb_create_table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that tables follow document permissions and that the response includes a URI. However, it does not mention error handling on duplicate names, idempotency, authentication needs, or rate limits, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 with 4 sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose and response, context with documents/permissions, column definitions, and collection usage. It is front-loaded and wastes no words.

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?

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context for basic operation. It covers key aspects like collection grouping and column types, but lacks details on error conditions, conflict handling, or constraints, making it slightly incomplete for complex scenarios.

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 60% (3 of 5 parameters have descriptions). The description adds value by explaining the collection parameter's grouping behavior and column types, but does not elaborate on vault or description parameters. Baseline 3 applies, and the description provides moderate improvement.

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 creates a structured data table in a vault, specifies the response includes the canonical URI, and mentions tables live alongside documents in collections. This distinguishes it from siblings like akb_alter_table or 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 explains the context (tables in collections, same permissions) and provides guidance on the collection parameter (omit for vault root). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like alter or drop, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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