akb_create_table

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It explains the outcome (table creation, URI returned), permissions (same as documents), and structural behavior (under collection or vault root). It lacks details on error conditions or limits but is sufficiently transparent for a creation tool.

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 four sentences, concise with front-loaded purpose. It efficiently covers creation, URI, permissions, and column definitions. Minor redundancy (e.g., 'Define columns with name and type') could be tightened, but overall well-structured.

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?

The description covers the main aspects: creation, location options, URI format, permissions, column types, and relation to parent. It lacks mention of the 'required' field for columns or error scenarios, but given the absence of an output schema, it provides sufficient context for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.

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 description significantly adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains the URI derivation, collection grouping behavior, the relationship to browsing (akb_browse), and the interplay between parent, vault, and collection parameters. Schema coverage is 83%, but the description enriches understanding of all key parameters.

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 it creates a structured data table in a vault, specifying the action ('Create') and the resource ('structured data table'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like akb_alter_table and akb_drop_table by explaining the creation process and output URI format.

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 (to create a table) and explains the optional collection parameter behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives like akb_alter_table for modifications.

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