add_table

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

The description adds the column syntax example, which is useful behavioral context. Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation, but the description doesn't explain what happens on duplicate tables or validate column formats. It doesn't contradict annotations.

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 entire description is one efficient sentence that front-loads the action. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple three-parameter tool, the description is adequate, and the output schema reduces the need to explain return values. However, it lacks explicit guidance on parameter semantics for all fields and doesn't mention edge cases like duplicate table names or column format constraints beyond one example.

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?

With no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description adds meaning to the `columns` parameter via the `id: INTEGER pk` example, clarifying the expected string format. The `diagram` and `table` parameters are left to their self-explanatory names, but the example still provides real value.

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 specifies a concrete action ('Add a table') and identifies the target resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_column or remove_table by focusing on table creation, and even provides a column format example.

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?

It implies use when adding a table to a diagram but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives. There's no mention of using add_column instead for modifying existing tables, so the guidance is merely implied.

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