create_sql_pool

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses that workspace admin role is required and that the API is beta/preview, which is useful context. It does not describe side effects beyond creating the pool, such as billing impact, reversibility, or validation behavior, but the permission and stability warnings add meaningful transparency.

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 well-organized: a one-sentence purpose, a clean Arg list with per-parameter guidance, and a short final line for permissions and API status. Every sentence provides useful information without fluff or redundancy.

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 seven parameters, no annotations, and zero schema description coverage, the description covers all parameters, defaults, permissions, and beta API risk. The main gap is the absence of usage-routing guidance compared to related pool/warehouse tools, and it does not clarify what a returned result looks like, though an output schema exists. Overall it is nearly complete for a create operation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does. Every parameter is explained with additional context: workspace accepts name or GUID, name must be unique, max_percent has a 1-100 range, defaults are stated for is_default and optimize_for_reads, and classifier_type/classifier_values include concrete examples. This goes well beyond the schema alone.

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 a specific verb and object: 'Add a new custom SQL pool to a workspace.' This clearly conveys a create-type operation and the target resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from related sibling tools like create_warehouse, but the phrase 'custom SQL pool' narrows the scope.

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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_warehouse, list_sql_pools, or update_sql_pool. The description states the admin role requirement and beta API status, which are prerequisites and risk warnings, but does not provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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