add_entity_key

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects and behavioral traits. It does so by warning that the supporting unique index is built asynchronously and the key is unusable until EntityKeyIndexStatus becomes 'Active', plus the need to poll. This is important behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it does not mention permission requirements or behavior on duplicate keys, so a small gap remains.

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 and well-structured: three sentences covering purpose, use cases, and a critical asynchronous caveat. No redundancy, every sentence adds value, and the most critical operational detail is placed prominently.

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 and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is notably complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, and the essential post-creation step (polling for active status). It effectively compensates for missing structured metadata and provides enough context for correct usage.

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 provides 100% parameter coverage with descriptions for every parameter, including examples and constraints. The description adds little new parameter-specific meaning beyond mentioning composite support via key_attributes, which the schema already explains. Thus, the 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 the action and resource: 'Create an alternate key on a Dataverse table' and explicitly mentions composite key support via key_attributes. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_entity_keys and delete_entity_key by focusing on creation, with use cases that are unique to this 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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use for race-safe upserts via keyed-PATCH or to enforce a uniqueness constraint that the primary key doesn't cover.' It also suggests a follow-up action (poll with list_entity_keys) which is valuable operational guidance for the agent.

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