create_schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It outlines the algorithm steps, including optional data insertion and handling of existing tables via skip_existing. However, it does not disclose permissions, potential side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites existing schema), or error conditions, which limits its transparency.

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 a title line, an algorithm numbered list, and labeled argument definitions. It conveys substantial information without excessive verbosity, though the algorithm details could be slightly more concise.

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 description covers the creation process, parameters, and return value (a dict with a detailed report). It lacks details on prerequisites, error handling, or output schema specifics, but given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema (not shown), it provides a solid foundation.

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%, but the description adds clear explanations for all four parameters (doc_id, schema, skip_existing, insert_data), including defaults. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema types and names.

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 'Crée un schéma complet avec tables, colonnes et relations' (creates a complete schema with tables, columns, and relations), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_table or create_column by indicating it handles the entire schema in one operation.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_table or create_column. There is no mention of scenarios where incremental creation is preferred or when to use this tool over the others.

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