schema_load_tool

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

With no annotations, the description discloses core behaviors: validation with DuckDB and storage in project state. However, it lacks details on side effects (e.g., overwriting existing schemas), error handling, or required permissions, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 a single 15-word sentence that front-loads the action and includes all key elements (ingest, validate, store). No extraneous words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool has an output schema (not shown), the description is too brief to cover essential context for a tool with 4 undocumented parameters. It omits details about DuckDB prerequisites, metadata format, and error behavior, leaving the agent with significant unknowns.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'from file or raw text' hinting at schema_path and ddl_text, and 'store in project state' hinting at schema_entity_id and root_dir, but does not explain parameter formats, defaults, or relationships. The description adds only partial meaning beyond parameter names.

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 uses a specific verb ('Ingest') and resources ('DDL from file or raw text'), explicitly stating validation and storage actions. It distinguishes from sibling schema tools like schema_evaluate_tool by focusing on loading rather than evaluation.

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 implies when to use the tool (to load DDL from file or text) but does not explicitly compare it to alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling tools like schema_evaluate_tool suggest different use cases, but the description does not clarify when to choose this over others.

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