create_reference_column

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It transparently describes the four-step process: checking table existence, resolving column name, creating the column, and optionally creating the reverse relation. It also notes the effect of is_list on the column type (Ref vs RefList). This is detailed and honest.

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 well-structured with numbered steps and a parameter list. It front-loads the purpose and provides detailed explanations. While it is slightly verbose due to the number of parameters, every sentence adds necessary information given the low schema coverage. It earns a 4.

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's complexity (8 parameters, reference column with auto-resolution, optional reverse relation) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the process, parameters, and return format ('Dict avec statut, détails et éventuels warnings'). It is comprehensive and leaves no significant gaps.

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 fully. It provides an 'Args:' section that explains all eight parameters, including the meaning of visible_column (resolved to colRef), the default for is_list (false), and the optional nature of label and reverse_column. This adds substantial value beyond the schema.

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 it creates a reference column with automatic resolution of visibleCol. The verb 'Crée' and the resource 'colonne de référence' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_column' by detailing the reference-specific logic and steps.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_column' or 'modify_column'. However, the context of creating reference columns with auto-resolution is clear. There is no guidance on when not to use or prerequisites, but the purpose is adequately implied.

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