Add Code Search Table

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool modifies configuration and warns to verify inputs, but it does not detail behaviors such as whether adding a duplicate table overwrites or errors, permissions required, or rollback options. It is adequate but not rich.

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?

Three concise sentences: first states purpose, second explains effect, third lists requirements and a warning. No unnecessary information. Front-loaded with key verb and resource.

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 is a mutation with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites and a warning. It could mention what confirmation or response to expect on success, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to decide and execute.

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 coverage is 100% and the description adds value by advising how to obtain valid values (e.g., 'get it from list_code_search_groups', 'use lookup_table to verify', 'use lookup_columns to find fields'). This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 verb 'add', the resource 'table to an existing code search group', and the effect 'expanding what gets searched'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'code_search' (searching) and 'list_code_search_groups' (listing groups).

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 explains when to use (to add a table to a search group) and provides context by mentioning prerequisites (sys_id, table name, fields) and a warning to verify. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the warning implies careful consideration and the need for prior verification.

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