create_asset_table

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that asset tables automatically include specific columns, integrate with executions, and default to the domain schema when none is provided. It also states the return format, covering key behavioral traits 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?

The description is well-structured with a summary, parameter list, return info, and example. Every sentence adds value, and the main purpose is front-loaded. The length is appropriate for the complexity of the tool.

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 is complete for a creation tool: it explains what the tool does, what parameters mean, what is returned, and provides a concrete example. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values, and the description covers the essential contextual aspects.

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 no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: asset_name, columns, referenced_tables, comment, and schema. It even gives an example, making it clear how to invoke the tool with these arguments.

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 opens with 'Create a new asset table for file management with automatic URL/checksum tracking,' which clearly identifies the specific action and resource. It further distinguishes itself from generic table creation by listing automatic columns and integration with executions for provenance.

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: it is for file management with URL/checksum tracking and execution provenance. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like the sibling 'create_table' or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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