Save Table Documentation (Background Task)

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

The annotations indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint false) and non-destructive, and the description adds important async behavior: it returns a task_id rather than the result, and points to the polling tool. It does not mention overwrite semantics or possible side effects on existing documentation, but the provided context is sufficient given the 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?

Two sentences with the main action, the async qualifier, and the polling instruction; no redundancy or low-value prose.

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 background task tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the invocation model (submit and get a task_id) and names the follow-up tool. It could be more explicit about error handling or whether the save overwrites existing descriptions, but the essential usage is documented.

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 already describes all four parameters with 100% coverage, including the nested structure of 'descriptions'. The description adds only a high-level mapping of inputs (table/column descriptions and preview) without new meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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 the specific verb 'Save' and specifies the resource ('table/column descriptions and a table preview') as well as the background-task nature, which differentiates it from the synchronous sibling lyzr_semantic_model_save_documentation. This gives the agent a precise understanding of the tool's function.

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 clearly states the tool runs as a background task and directs the agent to poll with lyzr_semantic_model_get_task_status using the returned task_id. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with the synchronous save_documentation sibling or state when one should be preferred over the other.

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