peaka_create_cache

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false) indicate it's a write but non-destructive operation. The description adds context about storing data locally and improving performance, and notes schedules are optional. No contradictions, but it lacks details on error handling, idempotency, or what happens if a cache already exists.

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 concise, with two sentences in the first paragraph that cover purpose and schedule details. The second paragraph adds context-dependent guidance. Every sentence adds value, though the first paragraph could be slightly more streamlined.

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?

No output schema is provided, yet the description does not mention the return value or success/failure indicators. It assumes agent knows table must exist and project metadata must be available. Given complexity (6 params, many optional), it could be more complete, though the guidance on projectId helps.

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 50% (3 of 6 parameters described). The description adds meaning by explaining ISO-8601 durations and deferring schedule setting to another tool. However, it does not elaborate on catalogId, schemaName, or tableName, which lack schema descriptions, so the compensation is partial.

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 that the tool creates a cache for a table to improve query performance, using a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('cache'). It differentiates from sibling tools like peaka_update_cache by noting that schedules can be set later, but does not explicitly distinguish from other cache-related siblings like peaka_create_cache_batch.

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 explicit guidance: use when you want to cache a table; if projectId is unknown, call peaka_list_projects first; mentions peaka_update_cache as an alternative for setting schedules later. This helps the agent decide when to use this tool.

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