create_table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral transparency. It warns that select_body is executed as DDL and must start with SELECT, but does not disclose permissions needed, side effects, or what happens if the table 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 and well-structured with a purpose statement, caution, and parameter list. It is front-loaded with the main action and does not include unnecessary 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?

Given the tool complexity (CTAS table creation) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential action and parameters. However, it lacks information on error handling (e.g., table already exists) and does not fully compensate for the lack of annotations.

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. It provides brief descriptions for all four parameters, including an example for qualified_name, which adds some semantic meaning beyond the parameter names, but lacks detail on workspace or item formats.

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 tool creates a new SQL table via CTAS, distinguishing it from siblings like clone_table or create_empty_table. The verb 'Create' and method 'CTAS' are specific, but it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

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 a caution about DDL execution and the SELECT keyword requirement, implying when to be careful, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_empty_table or clone_table.

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