create_table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create new tables' without mentioning side effects (e.g., irreversible DDL, potential data loss if table exists), permission requirements, or impact on database state. This is insufficient for a schema-changing operation.

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 one short, clear sentence ('Create new tables in the database') with zero waste. It's appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse, though it lacks any operational detail that might justify a longer description.

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 that this is a data definition operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not cover error handling, idempotency, or the need for a valid connection. Sibling tools like drop_table have similar simplicity, but for a DDL tool, more context (e.g., impact on existing data, transaction support) is expected.

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 100%, so parameter semantics are largely defined by the schema. The description adds a tiny bit of extra clarity by naming 'tables' as the resource, but it doesn't elaborate on the format or constraints of the 'query' parameter beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies, but the description's alignment with the schema justifies a 4.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('tables in the database'), clearly stating the action. It distinguishes from siblings like alter_table and drop_table, though it doesn't specify scope (e.g., within a connection) beyond the parameter.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like execute_query or write_query, which could also run CREATE TABLE statements. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid connection or schema context, nor does it exclude cases where other tools would be more appropriate.

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