create_procedure

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full responsibility. It prominently warns that the body is executed verbatim as DDL and instructs the agent to verify intent before calling—this is a critical behavioral disclosure. It does not mention permissions or what happens if the procedure already exists, but the most significant risk is explicitly surfaced.

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 compact and well-structured: a clear purpose statement, a brief platform-support note, a high-visibility caution, and a straightforward parameter list. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important warning is placed before the parameter details.

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?

For a creation tool with no annotations and an existing output schema, the description covers the core essentials: what it does, where it works, what each parameter means, and the major execution hazard. It omits permission requirements and behavior if the procedure already exists, but these are secondary to the primary safety concern already disclosed.

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 schema provides only type and title for each parameter, so the Args section is essential. It adds concrete meaning by explaining workspace and item as names or GUIDs, providing a dot-separated example for qualified_name ('dbo.usp_load'), and clarifying that body contains the 'AS …' section. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 opens with 'Create a new stored procedure,' which names the specific action and resource. It also distinguishes the tool from sibling operations like update_procedure, drop_procedure, and get_procedure by the verb, and clarifies the supported environments (Fabric Data Warehouses and SQL Analytics Endpoints).

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 clear contextual guidance by stating which platforms support stored procedures, helping the agent determine when the tool is applicable. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like update_procedure or list_procedures, but the verb 'create' and the overall context make the intended usage obvious.

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