create_partition

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full behavioral burden, yet it provides none. It does not state whether the operation is idempotent, what permissions are required, whether existing partitions are overwritten, or what happens on failure for a 6-parameter mutation 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 a single, appropriately short phrase with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified rather than concise, lacking the front-loaded information an agent needs to correctly invoke a mutation 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?

For a 6-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits critical behavioral context such as safety (non-destructive vs destructive), error handling, and return values, leaving the agent with only the schema to infer behavior.

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 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema (tableName, schemaName, partitionColumn, partitions, partitionType, connectionName). The description adds no parameter details beyond implying tables have partitions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents 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 'Cria partições em uma tabela' (Creates partitions in a table) is a near-tautology that restates the tool name with minimal added detail. It does identify the resource (partitions on a table) but provides no distinguishing scope versus sibling tools like drop_partition or create_schema.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, prerequisites, or how it differs from alternatives like drop_partition or create_schema. An agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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