bootstrap_iceberg

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a write operation but lacks details on required permissions, potential side effects, or what 'verifies connection' entails. The dry_run parameter is a safety feature but not explained in the description.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main purpose and efficiently lists the steps, with no wasted words.

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?

Given the tool has only one parameter with a dry run option and no output schema, the description covers the overall purpose adequately. However, it could elaborate on prerequisites or the exact tables created for completeness.

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 the dry_run parameter fully (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('bootstrap') and resource ('Iceberg FDW on Postgres'), and enumerates the steps involved, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_iceberg_tables'.

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 it is for initial setup but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'list_iceberg_tables' or when a dry run is appropriate.

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