postifys_cq_create_table

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses two important preconditions: CONTENT_QUEUE_ENABLED and publish entitlement. However, it does not describe side effects such as persistence, what happens if the table name already exists, or whether the operation is reversible.

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 brief and mostly efficient, with two sentences carrying domain context, prerequisites, and the core action. The parenthetical 'scheduler without n8n' adds context but is not strictly necessary, and the main action appears only at the end rather than being front-loaded.

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 tool is simple with only one parameter and no output schema, and the description provides fundamental context and prerequisites. However, it lacks information about expected return values, error behavior on duplicate names, and whether the created table is immediately usable. This is adequate but not fully complete.

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 for the undocumented 'name' parameter. It does not explicitly state that 'name' is the new table's name or explain naming conventions. The phrase 'data table for queue rows' only implicitly suggests the purpose of the parameter, which is insufficient given the complete lack of schema-level description.

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 the tool creates a data table for queue rows, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like postifys_cq_list_tables and postifys_cq_add_item, though it does not explicitly name an alternative or contrast itself with one.

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 contextual usage guidance by stating that CONTENT_QUEUE_ENABLED must be set and publish entitlement is required, effectively telling the agent when not to use the tool. It does not explicitly discuss when to prefer this over a sibling, but the prerequisites and domain context are useful.

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