create_table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the creation action, the uniqueness constraint on table_id, optional columns with examples, and return data. It does not mention error behavior (e.g., duplicate IDs) or side effects, but overall it provides solid behavioral context beyond the schema.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections: purpose, prerequisites, workflow, args with examples, and returns. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 an output schema (context confirms), the description's return explanation is sufficient. It covers prerequisites, workflow, and parameter details. It lacks error handling or edge cases like invalid doc_id, but for typical use it is complete. The sibling context shows many tools, but this description stands alone well.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds significant meaning: doc_id is the document ID, table_id must be unique, and columns is a list of column definitions with a detailed example. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though a bit more detail on each parameter type would be ideal.

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 new table in a document ('Crée une nouvelle table dans un document'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_column' by specifying the resource 'table', but lacks explicit differentiation from other 'create_' tools. The purpose is clear but could be more specific about its unique role.

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?

Excellent guidance: prerequisites (list_documents to get doc_id), a step-by-step typical workflow, and parameter examples. This explicitly tells the agent when and how to use the tool, including verifying creation. No guidance on when not to use, but the workflow is comprehensive.

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